Slashdot Mirror
South Carolina Education Committee Removes Evolution From Standards
Toe, The writes "The South Carolina Education Oversight Committee approved new science standards for students except for one clause: the one that involves the use of the phrase 'natural selection.' Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, argued against teaching natural selection as fact, when he believes there are other theories students deserve to learn. Fair argued South Carolina's students are learning the philosophy of natural selection but teachers are not calling it such. He said the best way for students to learn is for the schools to teach the controversy. Hopefully they're going to teach the controversy of gravity and valence bonds too. After all, they're just theories."
I honestly don't see the issue with presenting all sides of an issue. I think going all evolution and excluding creationism is as bad as forcing only creationism to the exclusion of evolution. That said, I can only hope they use the Darwin Awards as the best proof we have of natural selection.
So, if a State chooses to not teach their children what is accepted in the scientific community, should this be their prerogative? At the same time, a decade later, when their students do not fair well at college, or professionally, they should be comfortable with that aspect to their decisions.
There aren't enough jobs for kids anyway. If one or three states choose (on their own accord) not to prepare their children to compete in the job market the rest of us should be happy. If you live in one of those states, vote the idiots out or move. Case closed.
I have no problem with presenting creationism as an alternative, as long as you include ALL creation myths in the curriculum. It wouldn't be "teaching the controversy" unless you teach them all.
I mean, sure, we all really KNOW that the world began when Udu the Space Tortoise shat out the earth and His godly flatulence created the sun, but we have to let the kids decide for themselves.
Hitchens yelling "for shame!" rang into my ears, straight from the 2009 "is the catholic church a force for good" debate.
Available here
Getting tired of reading about this continuous crap from America.
Actually, it's the "law of gravity," not the "theory." As it should be with something that can be demonstrated by experiment, is reproducible and despite centuries of effort hasn't been refuted by experiment.
Please don't compare experimental science with historical evidence science. Their conclusions don't have the same level of confidence and shouldn't be taught as if they do.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Teach religion in religion class and science in science class. If you can't test it, it's not science. If you CAN, even if it's something you find distasteful, it IS science...
There's no controversy here, merely people who don't like the fact that the sun doesn't come up in the south.
Anybody who says is is a fact is just as dishonest as theses people. Evolution is a very well supported theory, far in advance of any competition. It is incomplete, and there is a residual possibility of it being completely wrong, but anybody that has even a bit of understanding of Science will accept it as very likely true unless exceedingly strong evidence to the contrary shows up. As such evidence has not turned up so far, Evolution is the way to go.
Unfortunately, most people cannot deal with non-absolutes or very small probabilities. That is why so many hope to win the lottery or are afraid of being harmed by terrorists. Both events are so exceedingly unlikely that for all practical purposes they cannot happen to them. But there is a small, insignificant residual chance that they may happen and that confuses many, many people.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I agree - teach the contraversy. We have seen enough things fall by the wayside in the history of science that we should not consider anything with reverance, e.g. flat earth, sun circles the earth, etc.
Teach the scientific method and let the kids sort it out!
Some people think they don't need to follow the law of gravity but they're wrong. You don't want to hear about the penalties.
The Controversy:
Fundamentalist religious people don't like the fact that natural selection (and the time frames required for evolution to have produced life on Earth) conflict with what the bible says. So they've made up a Creation 'science' to create 'controversy' about whether evolutionary science is in fact correct.
They've found scientists to amplify the aspects of evolution that we don't fully understand and then used that 'uncertainty' to pretend that it's evidence for their religious beliefs.
Any question? Okay, now class, lets teach the other side of the controversy. Get out your biology textbooks, please.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Same could be said for every single piece of human scientific achievement.
There is no controversy within the scientific community regarding evolution.
From reading parts of the Wikipedia definition of what a scientific theory is, evolution is a bit on the iffy side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
[quote]
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.
[/quote]
How can one test a random event, such as mutation? There really isn't a large enough "lab", short of another planet. And, even then, we haven't been observing and recording evolutionary processes for long enough. Oh, some lab may have been doing genetic modifications on organisms. But that is, hopefully, intelligently directed and thus not truly "random". Evolution does seem to make sense. But, then, so did the Earth centered universe at one time. Because the Earth didn't seem to be moving, therefore it must be the other objects which were moving. I'm wearing my flame retardant suit, so fee free to say nasty things about me.
Further erosion of the American education system means less competition for those of us (and our kids) living elsewhere in world.
There are other theories that should be taught as well, such as the round earth theory, the theory that we exist outside of "the matrix", and indeed the theory that god did not create us a tenth of a second ago.
Is pretty clear that that comitee members descended from monkeys... and kept descending.
It should be taught as science.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
If narrow-minded idiots don't understand the difference between the meanings of theory in a scientific and colloquial context, then scientists should just stop using the word theory as a scientific term.
Just don't call it a "fact". Maybe call it a "truth," so one of their favorite terms has a double-meaning that they don't like. That should really get their blood boiling, and teach them to stop abusing the language to suit their ends.
Sigh.
Theory's and laws are different things.
There is the law of gravity F=mg, and gravitational theory, aka the theory of gravity.
So yes, you have the law of gravity and the theory of gravity.
A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena.
To teach creationism as an 'alternative theory of evolution' is the exact same as teaching magic pixie dust pulls things down.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Congress really needs to get hands-on with educational standards. There's a stronger commerce interest in all states producing only their fair share of idiots than in most of the crap Congress has regulated through the Commerce Clause. Really wish they'd do a study comparing college performance in people that weren't taught evolution versus those that were. If nothing else, the non-evo's probably have to spend more time in otherwise optional science classes to catch up. That assumes a pattern of educational control that hasn't completely retarded their ability to think critically, of course. Everyone behind these standards changes, every self-righteous blowhard and bigoted soccer mom, need to have their names inscribed on a wall somewhere, so their great great grandchildren can feel shame.
If I were a teacher in a little town like Lord's Mudbucket, South Carolina, I'd teach the theory of evolution of religion, as a means of gaining insight into why there is a controversy in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Ref: "Evolution for Everyone" David Sloan Wilson"
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Ah, yes? Is there a problem here?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
There is no "controversy". No. There isn't. So there is nothing else to teach, other than credible scientific theory, when it comes to how we got here. No, your beliefs do not come anywhere near to the definition of "scientific theory". Get over it and stop trying to make your children stupid.
http://www.universetoday.com/4...
Sounds legit. Teach the Controversy!
Koans and fables for the software engineer
( or, actually, two ) : intellectual rednecks
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
If take the Bible literally, you have to accept an enormous amount of logical contradictions and cognitive dissonance. Evolution is where they start to have a problem? Any time there's discrepancy between the Bible and common sense the answer is always "magic"(God). Why can't evolution fall under that too for these people? Would a literal interpretation of the Bible really be that much more absurd if in addition to talking snakes and magic apples that the universe is 14 billion years and simultaneously 6 thousand years old?
In 1983 T.H Bell, the Secretary of Education, proclaimed the Class of 83 as the dumbest graduating class in the history of his department. The Class of 83 is now running the local, State, and Federal government. Wow, Bell was right. They don't know science, they don't know math, they don't know civics. Let us hope that the class of 2014 is better prepared for the challenges of running the United States. Come on 83, you are embarrassing us.
Evolution as religion? FFS are you an idiot. Like seriously you should probably not breed because you're bringing everyone else down. There's NUMEROUS points where macros evolution has been shown and let's just stop with this made up distinction right here. Evolution is evolution, macro evolution is just micro evolution over a long time period, if you believe otherwise you're wrong. Period. Evolution HAS been tested with the scientific method and stands up as a valid scientific theory, which is not the same as a theory that you and pastor Jimbob came up with over beer and hate at your church picnic, which you addled brained idiots can't seem to understand. You're wrong, you win nothing, go home and stop talking because you sure as hell aren't thinking critically before you type or speak. Go home and cry into your book of fairy tales and leave the thinking to the adults.
Here you go: There are powerful and vocal people who neither know nor care about how science actually works.
Many comments are in these weird illegible tiny fonts. The whole thing looks like a ransom note. WTF?
The distinction between what is and is not "science" doesn't mean much to those who want to make sure that their kids are not taught lies in school.
Some people turn to religion to gain certainty where there is none. In order for this psychological device to work, they must honestly believe that the points of their religious teaching are inarguable fact, and that any evidence to the contrary is a result of either incompetence or deception. People who believe this don't give a hoot what is or is not "science," since they only care about what does or does not agree with their forgone conclusions.
"Teach the controversy," is the second-best stance that they take only because they know that "teach our religion as fact" is already a lost battle (but would still be the best option).
Trying to get logical consistency on these points is futile, since the basic motivation has nothing to do with challenging kids to think critically, and everything to do with ensuring that their kids don't lose their faith by going to school.
Hey Muricans, I thought your country had this separation of church and state stuff, where if it was a state school for example, it's meant to be secular, and basically if you want religious education, go to a religious school? There's also this thing where like, and I know it's hard to get your head around, but different subjects exist for a reason. Art class doesn't teach mathematics, maths class does, and art teaches art. Whereas science class teaches science, and religious stuff belongs in a class that might be called 'comparative religious studies' or 'social and cultural studies' or something similar. Would you get a bit upset if let's say your little sweetheart was supposed to learn algebra in maths class, but instead was finger-painting numbers? Or what about if your darling was supposed to be learning chemistry but instead taught that valence bonds were unproven and that all the stuff we see is joined together because Satan wills it so? You might as well be doing this if you're going to take evolutionary theories / natural selection out of the classroom because your beliefs, or the beliefs of some jacked up minority (who wouldn't know science if it hit them on the head) supposedly speaking on your behalf, contradict this. Get on the offensive, parents. Let your kinds learn about Jebus and Mo and Yaweh and Mazda and Buddha in a separate class. Science is for science. And it works, bitches. Love, Someone who values your kids' education too
Only when filthy garbage like this is ejected from the union will America be a country worth existing. Kick these bastards out.
I live in the US, and this doesn't bother me in the slightest. Why? Because it uncovers the secret that most advocates of central planning are hypocrites. Clearly, what you are witnessing here is the will of the people -- the same exact justification the advocates of central planning use for just about everything they advocate. So suck it up and deal with it. If you don't support "creationism", then you lost this one. Get over it.
Creationism is a theory like a fart is a theory. If you embrace the idea that anything can be called a theory, then, ok, every marklar is a marklar.
(What is wrong with these weird fonts on slashdot?)
I want to make fun of South Carolina, because it's the right thing to do. But I will hold off. Faith-based perspectives are matters of faith, they are not provable. Ergo, they should be reserved for faith organizations, not public schools. There is no controversy, other than the fact that people with faith (read: you cannot prove it) should stick to the faith business and leave the teaching of science to the folks that do science.
Which suggests that mankind's struggle for millennia to lift the veil of human ignorance is far from over.
The progression of increasing rigour, is hypothesis then theory then law,
Creationism isn't a theory, it's not even a hypothesis, but it is a fantasy.
While I don't have the reference, I would imagine that things like the Galapagos finches and the like show one definition of "macro-evolution" - the species has bifurcated, yielding members that are no longer fertile.
I assume you discount the fossil
record, DNA comparisons and other retrospective analyses as well?
How Does the U.S. Compare to Other Countries in STEM Education?
The World Economic Forum ranks the United States 52nd in the quality of mathematics and science education, and 5th (and declining) in overall global competitiveness
The United States ranks 27th in developed nations in the proportion of college students receiving undergraduate degrees in science or engineering
There are more foreign students studying in U.S. graduate schools than the number of U.S. students [vii] and over 2/3 of the engineers who receive Ph.D.’s from United States universities are not United States citizens
And the government will wonder why?
Creationism is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory not only ties together a wide range of observations, it makes testable predictions that have gone on to be tested and verified. In science, 'hypothesis' is closest to what people commonly mean by the word 'theory'. For example, it's still the "Germ Theory of Disease" in science, but that's been, er, rather thorougly confirmed.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Up until a few decades there was a controversy around gravity. There were some discrepancies between the current model for gravity and observations. 2 leading hypotheses emerged. One proposed to change the model, Modified Newtonian Dynamics (or MOND), and the other proposed to change the observations, the existence of dark matter. In recent years it seems the dark matter hypothesis has the clear advantage.
The "controversy of gravity" is not *that* gravity exists, but rather with the correctness of the explanation for gravity as demonstrated by the ability to make accurate predictions. The dark matter hypothesis is currently "winning" because it is making better predictions than MOND in circumstances where the predictions of both models diverge (e.g. galaxy collisions).
I would also like to point out the difference between the two concepts of "evolution" (*that* life evolves), and "the theory of evolution by natural selection", originally proposed by Charles Darwin and later improved by others which is an explanation of *how* life evolved. There really isn't any controversy regarding "evolution" (*that* it happened). Evolution by natural selection is also on very firm ground, although there are lots of holes to fill in, to improve our understanding of the specifics of evolution by natural selection. Maybe there is some controversy somewhere in the study of evolution, but hypotheses that are unfalsifiable (e.g. creationism, and intelligent design, etc) are not valid as opposing hypotheses in any controversy.
So we should absolutely *not* "teach the controversy" of evolution in regards to intelligent design, because it is just fabricated. However, we should not attempt the reductio ad absurdum of "teaching the controversy of gravity", given that ther actually *was* a controversy regarding gravity in the recent past, and this controversy probably should have been taught given that it was legitimate.
Also, gravity is the last of the 4 primary forces yet to be made compatible with quantum mechanics. because of this, our understanding of gravity is currently known to be incomplete. There absolutely is controversy in our understanding of gravity, and I think teaching it would be a great way to show the scientific method in action.
http://biologos.org/blog/ham-o... when you have a body of Christian doctoral professors that do not agree with you about your own interpretation of scripture you can not force the debate on children. If you are an adult you can read up on what these issues are and make your own decision. Children do not have that luxury. To force a religious belief on a child that can not even be agreed upon within that religion is equatable to child abuse. Public schools should teach No faith, faith is up to the parents to teach. This is more of a problem with parents expecting schools to do it all for them than it is about religious over scientific view points. Guess what, raising a kid is hard. It is not the job of teachers to teach religion that roll is on the parents and religious leaders of the community. Do you think schools teach the about Native American history or our spirituality? As a native man I can say they absolutely do not. So should I petition the school or should I just sit my child down once and a while and teach it to him myself and help him form his own opinion on the conflicts that arise from being taught booth views. Don't be a lazy parent and teach your kid your faith and let others do the same for their children. If you don't fell like raising your child is your responsibility then maybe you should not have had them.
Oh look and he's a Republican. How completely unsurprising.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
Ken Ham's Creationism which says Noah's flood dropped the fossils has been proven false as far back as the 19th century, by Christians. This is not to say Creationism or the flood is impossible, just Ken Ham's version of the flood is. I don't think we should be changing education. Evolution in its many forms has been observed. Maybe just have a foot note saying,"It isn't the only origin theory and there are also problems with abiogenesis.", but anything past that and you're changing education too much. What are you going to start teaching every known religion's origin theory? That'd be pretty redic.
God spoke to me
You're confusing "hypothesis" with "theory":
A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.
At best, Creationism is a hypothesis.
Nevertheless; I find it horrific that a myth created by an Iron Age people, thousands of years before science even existed, is even taken seriously by anyone in this day and age. It shows how science education has failed in our society and how well the religious fundamentalists have done in warping politics - especially among the Republicans. It's of no surprise that it was a Republican who put this bill forward.
The Republican party is their own worst enemy and I miss the days before Reagan - the son of a bitch who ruined the party.
Is what we do when we breed cattle or dogs or the like for the traits we want.
We already do "natural selection" ourselves!
Amazing that the very people arguing against teaching the science are oblivious to this fact.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
does this make South Carolina the bottom 2%?
The real question is, do you want your children educated through a system designed by majority vote? (and/or designed by people elected by majority vote) Do you really want everyone in your community weighing in on your children's education or not?
If you really believe in democracy, I don't see how anyone can fault this. Personally, I do not believe in democracy, and think it's a terrible way to educate a child. But if you really believe in the whole electoral process, I don't think you have room to complain: you have to take the bad with the good, and vote for someone better next time.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Lobby all higher education institutions in the United states to reject students incoming and current originating from south Carolina for having not a up to par high school education.
Sure some college kids will get their panties in a twist but it will get them off their arses and fix their home state politics.
Maybe they are delayed for a year but the situation will be less disastrous and will be resolved faster than waiting for the long term economic impact.
In Creation 101, we learned that new species are created by design or engineered. Evolution occurs within a species through natural selection, however evolution does not result in the creation of a new species.
The technology is not here yet, but the day will come where where new living organisms will be designed and created from source code and printed out with organic printers in a manner that parallels the methods used to manufacture micro circuits today.
I am here as an observer,
Tall White Time Traveler
South Carolina is now the latest entry on my list of states to never live in.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Is anyone else horrified by my "theory" that the movie Idiocracy is actually a future historical documentary produced by Ken Burn's great-grandchild?! Good grief.
Pass the Brawndo. I'm low on electrolytes!
That's RIGHT! Show how the Jews picked up a lot of their religion from the Egyptians - like monotheism.
Compare the creation myths in the area at the time - and see the similarites.
Ask to have the kids find historical evidence of the existance of Jesus - Bible doesn't count.
Show the kids that 3,000 years ago - a THOUSAND years before the alledged existance of the Biblical Character Jesus - Confucius first said the Golden Rule. And show how most fo Christianity pretty much plagarized many other religions and Eastern thought that was imported via the Silk Road and other trading routes from the East.
Show the kids that EVERY thing in the Bible is myth - they're just stories like the Greek, Indian, chinese, native American, etc ... myths - and that they cannot be taken as literal fact.
An undereducated populace benefits businesses that desire cheap labor. I believe such considerations are also behind the continuing support for tobacco by our various governments.
Wake up folks. We still treat those creationist fanatics as silly curiosities and ignore fact that they are danger. They're real deal folks. In a system where legislation is bought and paid for, someone is putting gobs of money to push this crap down our throats. They are clearly trying to blur distinction between someone's beliefs and verifiable facts. This is power game. Maybe they see how much power do radical islamist clerics wield over undereducated, poor middle eastern people and they're trying to play the same book - and it seems to work almost as well in poor regions of USofA. Think of all those mega-churches and shady characters behind these, trying to put their their fingers whenever power is (army in particular). If we don't stop those fucks, they'll destroy everyone standing in their way using the same terrorist methods Saudis are using today in Syria or Chechenya. Future fascism will born in the US and use Holy Cross as its emblem the same way nazis were using swastika. Instead of just laughing at it, we should stop it in its tracks at all costs - in order to save both us and (honest parts of) Christianty. And no, corporate estabullshitment won't help us. Corporations will be as happy profiting from this as they were happy profiting from nazis in 1930-s.
Good luck testing the theory of evolution. Part of the problem is that, barring Elvish researchers entering the arena, we've got precious few observers qualified to attest to evolution of divergent species. Fruit flies shifting to one end of the bell curve is nothing like Darwinian evolution, it's more like breeding shorter Daschunds.
By your definition of "testable predictions" Darwinian evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design would all seem to be in the same category of pseudo-science.
$
Hey, it could be worse - they could be teaching Common Core.
sad_trombone.wav
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Science by consensus is one of the world's biggest circle-jerks.
There is no controversy over those other theories you list. No one is advocating that alchemy or phrenology be taught. No one is seriously advocating that the Flying Spaghetti Monster be taught either (especially since none of the pastafarians actually believe in pastafarianism).
If there were an actual controversy over these things, then you might have a point. But there isn't. There is a very large number of people who want evolution taught, and a very large number of people who want intelligent design to be taught, and *that* is the controversy.
Granted, the "teach the controversy" position logically should include these alternatives since they stand on the same philosophical ground as intelligent design...but...the fact is there is no controversy over them.
Almost all, if not all, sciences started out as philosophies and moved into the realm of science when evidence and facts showed it to be correct.
Until evidence and or facts can be shown and proven impeachable, then a philosophy can move into a science. Until then it should be only discussed in schools as a philosophy class and not a science.
I'm about sick of people engaging in these debates with "Creationists" over evolution. Each and every time, the person supporting evolution argues the completely wrong argument. Instead of arguing the validity of Evolution, they instead try to argue that there is no God... or that Evolution means there is no God. Meanwhile the creationist simply has to lean on his Bible and say "Well see? It says right here... God did that bit, that's how!"
It's pretty much impossible to prove some omnipotent being didn't just make everything the way it is. How can you argue against that other than its statistical unlikelihood?
So, the correct argument... It's simply: There is nothing about Evolution that contradicts a belief in God. You can believe in Evolution and Believe God, just as a belief that Egg Noodles are tasty would have no baring on your belief in God either. The Bible doesn't mention egg noodles, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist at the time.
But oh! you say, the bible says the earth is 6000 years old, so obviously it contradicts Evolution.
Well, no, on all accounts. First off, we didn't decide the Bible is the word of God yet, there are lots of religions out there after all. But lets assume so... nowhere in the bible is the age of the earth mentioned. You'd think that if this was something God was particularly concerned about, he' have stated something like "The earth was created on January 1 3995 BC" but no... instead we have biblical scholars that have added up the dates between different events in the bible and declared the age of the earth as 6000 years. To me, this isn't at all clear. And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to find flaws in the bible here, I'm trying to get things right. If the Bible is the real word of God and he really wanted us to be arguing over how old the earth really was... Don't you think he would have put it in there? He wasn't sneaky about Murder... or stealing... but the entire natural history of creation he made a riddle? That doesn't make sense to me.
There are lots of other facts and figures that are mixed up in the Bible. Again, I'm not looking for flaws. I personally believe in God and think the Christian bible is indeed his work. I just do not think the Bible is the white-papers for the earth. I think it's poetry (and in fact, a lot of it really is poetry) and like poetry needs to be accepted as a whole work, not dissected and fiddled with to find hidden meaning. The truth of the Bible is obvious. Those things that seem questionable, we should leave that way. Make your own decision about what they mean and don't force it on others.
Except that most people performed the fruit fly experiment in high school and saw evolution in action. There is no doubt about evolution, just details about how it works and where it began that we have yet to fully answer, much like gravity.
It is an apt comparison indeed.
The reality is that both are testable and repeatedly so. They only diverge because you seem to say they do. You can quite reliably quantify evolution. Compare the little on your foot to that of a cave man. Notice a difference?
47% of Americans pay no income taxes. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every-- every four years. And-- and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for for their lives.
?
My point isn't to bash Mitt Romney but it is to point out that these people don't actually believe the bullshit they say publicly. Mitt Romney really believes that almost half the country are free-loading pieces of shit that know nothing of personal responsibility.
Does anyone really think Sen Fair thinks evolution is bullshit? Seriously even the Pope realizes evolution makes more sense than Genesis, probably because you would have to be brain dead to think the Bible or any scripture can be interpreted literally. No, Mr. Fair only says this shit to get Cleatus and Maud all hot and bothered and voting for him. It's a distraction from real issues, like that Mr. Fair would gladly help ship Cleatus' job to China if it means he gets a campaign contribution. It's not an (R) thing and its not a (D) thing, it's a political thing. Politicians realized that there are a lot of single issue voters out there, it would be stupid to ignore them.
So whats the solution I would propose? Don't get mad at them for playing the game. Change the game: Fix primaries. Fix gerrymandering. Restore a free and critical press. Mandate public financing of campaigns. If you remove all the bullshit and Cleatus and Maud still really really want evolution removed from the school curriculum, fine. Thats OK, but the way things are now there really is no choice, just the facade of one.
Isn't one dark age enough? Stop trying to backpedal an entire state ffs..
Bill Nye, a well respected scientist (agnostic), debated Ken Ham, a well respected scientist (Christian). See http://debatelive.org/ .
Peace.
Note to self: kids who are not being taught about evolution may one day be working on Boeing planes in S. Carolina. Let's hope they don't believe an omnipotent being is going to keep those planes in the air and skimp on some of the "science" that actually lifts the planes. Fly Airbus?
Probably, but Republicrats have built up many decades of precedent that it would fall under "Interstate Commerce" and can therefore be a federal power, if the feds want it.
Who would oppose it falling under Interstate Commerce? Libertarians? In the voting booth, 99% of people say they strongly disagree with Libertarians.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Unfortunately, it will take the child until they are 20 or so to feel the full effects of being poorly educated, worse, being denied the tools of critical thought. At that point bringing that person up to the capability to deal with the technology of the workplace that will face them in 2030 will be nearly insurmountable.
Quite often, it's not the (then adult) that feels the full effects but rather anyone around who is subject to his/her ill-taught legacy.
Who cares whether kids are learning good biology or not? No jobs in that. Wake me up when they start screwing around with real stuff, like math.
It's not a theory it's a hypothesis!
Imagine that your a high school or junior high school biology teacher. Several times a day you are in a classroom in a rural southern state with an audience of 20 to 30 students. You know that more than half of the students in your class have been told by their parents and their pastors, that when the subject of evolution comes up, they should just tune out. Many of you keep saying that there's no controversy and nothing to gain by teaching the controversy. Well, for this class room full of skeptical students there's a lot of controversy. I guarantee you won't break through to them by ignoring it.
Thank god for states like SC and Texas we need to depend more on people from other countries to help this country move forward in the future.
Science deals with what is at least theoretically testable.
Science can be wrong.
It might be the case that the universe began "In medias res" 5 minutes ago or 5000 years ago or 10 (not 13+) billion years ago. These are all theories of how the universe works, and any one of them might actually be correct. But they aren't testable, and therefore have no place in "science."
Such a theory is also not useful, in that it doesn't tell us anything of practical value. At least the Bible's creation story (and other religious creation stories) provide practical utility: If they are correct, they show us that 1) we are not alone in the universe, 2) we are created beings, 3) animals, plants, and the Earth (and sky and sea) are created by the same Creator. The "In medias res" theory doesn't even provide that much. If it happens that the universe is 5 minutes old, "so what."
Most of the various flavors of biological evolution of life on Earth and the smaller-scale theories that follow from it are at least in principle testable without time-travel, but only if we "get lucky" and the evidence is not lost forever. Some, such as a theory that such-and-such long-extinct animal evolved from another long-extinct animal, may prove to be un-testable if we don't find proof by the time the sun engulfs the planet Earth. When that happens, that theory will no longer have a place in Science either.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
... I do think that there are certain fields that a strong believer wouldn't find any reason to study. An extreme view of that would even include something like biology or astronomy.
The Big Bang Theory and the dating of the universe at approximately 14 billion years old was proposed by a Catholic priest, Monseigneur Georges Lemaitre.
fundamentalist christian idiocy makes me laugh and cry at the same time. I think our only hope for the future is for intelligent people to start making a lot of babies or we will be forever outnumbered by dopes. Democracy only works well if the people who vote have more than 1/2 a brain.
Whatever happened to the Republican party's movement to "stop being the party of stupid"?
It is possible... but the only method i'm aware of produces radioactive gold that decays into something else...
as a grownup we can fix the screwups and tell the idiots that want to mess everything up to bugger off.
Some religious schools teach science, catholics and many protestant denominations. They seem to teach science in their science class and religion in their religion class. This includes teaching evolution and cosmology.
Americans are viewed as ignorant morons. You elect these people, and let them stay in office.
They are the ones who represent your country, you don't like being called stupid, then you had best get to the polling booths and do something about it.
My theory is that the proponents of this approach in SC are pretty much all due to excessive inbreeding.
From these deductions I conclude that since the theory of evolution does not require a god, only a mechanism for mutation, that this contests their fundamental axiom which if proven false implies nothing can save Christians from death, and thus Christians allow their fear of death to rule them. Since this kind of nonsense does not occur in Europe or in those states which don't have a voting majority of fundamentalist Christians I conclude further that this mental illness is not an attribute of Christianity but only of bizarre fundamentalist sects instead.
As people get smarter then the myth of evolution will die.
---- GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
By that logic, we could use any of several dozen mythological creation stories that have no evidence. I find the Christian myth really unexciting, can we please instead examples of Scientology, Hindusim or DungeonsAndDragons ?
God's will. If it weren't for that, we'd all be dead. Who created the TV? God. Who makes rainbows? God. Who causes your boyfriend to cheat on you? Man's sin. Everything that is good and can't be explained through science is God's will. All the bad stuff is man's sin. Perfect sense.
"he believes there are other theories students deserve to learn."
Their little heads can only hold so much!
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
When I took basic biology in high school, they taught us Lamarkism and Spontaneous Generation as alternative theories. Then we went on to show that these formed testable hypotheses that were easily disproven. That is how you teach scientific controversy. With alternative scientific hypotheses.
"Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?" --Pinky
At my secondary school in the UK (between 1966 and 1972), not once was evolution taught in my science classes. In science, we measured, weighed, cut, burned, exploded, dissolved, attached weights, electrocuted, and stuff like that. Understanding evolution is not that important in most areas of science. The only time it was taught was in the Religious Education class by a Church Of Scotland minister. He explained it simply and in a way that made sense. It somehow seemed more relevant in that class, which covered 'big' topics such as existence, consciousness, morality, war, etc. I don't recall him saying that not everyone believed the theory of natural selection, but then again, he probably didn't tell us that not all Buddhists believe in reincarnation.
I don't think we got taught much about "theories" of gravity in science either. We learned that it causes falling objects to accelerate at 9.81 m/s/s, and that it causes a mass to have weight. We even verified those things. (Oh, experiments! How great you are!) But no one explained whether it was caused by magic magnets or gravity fairies or anything like that.
Truly teaching the controversy would be the creationists' worst nightmare, as the controversy actually happened in the nineteenth century and ended in a complete rout of the creationists.
The history of the real controversy can - and should - be taught without any changes to laws or regulations.
South Carolina is a leading, progressive state. While the Taliban only denies girls an education, SC denies an education to their children equally.
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Smoot
Watch the George Smoot episode of "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?" (it's on YouTube) to see a clear example of what RabidReindeer is refering to.
http://rmitz.org/freebsd.daemon.html
as AC, $CAPCHA="distort"
Evolution is the observed fact. Natural selection is the scientific theory. Why do you think it is called "theory of evolution by natural selection" ? Evolution is what is observed. Natural selection is the explanation we came up to explain the observation. Damn it, get it right.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Someone please state the obvious cognitive dissonance here, you cannot believe in one system of selective productivity (i.e. Capitalism) and not the other Natural Selection.
No, the comparison is correct: gravity is not being denied, despite multiple theories vying for the explanation. None of those theories go out and say "gravity does not exist". With evolution, the fundamental notion of evolution is being challenged; we're not at the same level at all. This would be more like multiple theories for how, say, traits are passed along were to arise: a specific element of the greater theory being put into question, but not entirely changing the premise.
Your entire description is, just like the random and totally unresearched example I gave, also way too complex and specialized for the context. We're talking about high school level stuff here. The gravity you see at that level is F=mg, which is entirely uncontested.
Fuck them like Catherine fucking a horse.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Are the classical concepts of "aether" buoyancy and levity more compatible with quantum mechanics than Newton and Laplace's theory of gravitational fields?
This is no more or less than state-mandated stupidity.
Welcome to 1858, children.
Gravity is total BS. When I fall down it isn't because of gravity it is because of the booze. /hicup
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
No, the comparison is correct: gravity is not being denied, despite multiple theories vying for the explanation. None of those theories go out and say "gravity does not exist". With evolution, the fundamental notion of evolution is being challenged; we're not at the same level at all. This would be more like multiple theories for how, say, traits are passed along were to arise: a specific element of the greater theory being put into question, but not entirely changing the premise.
My point is that when people say "Evolution is just a theory", the appropriate response is not to say "Gravity is just a theory too" really sarcastically. This is for a few reasons. 1. "Evolution" is not a theory. Evolution by natural selection is a theory. 2. When you say "Gravity is just a theory too", it is almost implying that if you disagree with the theory of gravity, you are denying that gravity exists, which is not true. You would actually be denying the correctness of Newton's theory of gravity (i.e. Newton's explanation of gravity). I think this comes because most people, including science advocates, don't really understand science or the scientific method.
The gravity you see at that level is F=mg, which is entirely uncontested.
The formula for gravity is actually F= G * m1 * m2 / r^2, and it is exactly this formula that was contested by Modified Newtonian Dynamics.
I learned about relativity in high school physics 18 years ago, I don't see how MOND or dark matter are harder concepts to understand than relativity. More importantly I think it is important to teach the [real] controversies of science to show children the scientific method in action. It would be so much more valuable to see competing hypotheses surviving and failing observational tests, than to just see a bunch of correct information presented as if it's gospel.
this will create states that resemble current day Mexico. Then we can finally secure our borders. We'll have plenty of unskilled cheap labor to pick our vegetables and mow our lawns right here in the good old US of A.
Get your shit together! You are on the road to become Brazil (the irony is that Brazil always tried to become America, just ask the argentinians): http://www.pulsamerica.co.uk/2...
Marklar, these marklars want to change your marklar. They don't want Marklar or any of these marklars to live here because it's bad for their marklar. They use Marklar to try and force marklars to believe they're marklar. If you let them stay here, they will build marklars and marklars. They will take all your marklars and replace them with Marklar. These marklar have no good marklar to live on Marklar, so they must come here to Marklar. Please, let these marklars stay where they can grow and prosper without any marklars, marklars, or marklars.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Don't teach religion at all in schools. Teach cultures of the world. Yes, it's a pipe dream, but maybe some day. You can also touch the subject of religion in philosophy class.
My theory is everything was laid down by a duck. The egg exploded and everything was born. Also, dogs are not real, but hallucinations caused by the vapours of the egg. Now there is my theory, start the discussion.
Or maybe we should teach the theories that are believed to be the most usefull for making predictions about the future events? It's not like we promptly abandoned Newtonian physics after they were proved to be very wrong, because they still make pretty great predictions when not approaching light speed. Creationism doesn't predict a thing. It is not a scientific theory, it's a belief system. It's religion in disguise.
because we all know what the world needs is more Miss Teen South Carolinas
Saudi Arabia, South Carolina; I'm always amused how the absolute power of the One True Word needs so much protection from mere mortals.
In order to preserve their cherished notions about the "origin of mankind", creationists screw up pretty much everything about science. That's the "issue" you're not seeing.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
We can see unnatural selection in dogs and pigeons.
We can see natural selection in ring species.
These are COLD STONE HARD FACT.
PS show me god creating a new species.
Go prove it in your state school high schools before you teach them 1+1=2.
The Mayflower landing is taught as factual. But go prove what's *taught* is 100% the complete and unvarnished truth.
No, you don't do that, do you, because you realise it's insane to try to teach logic and set theory to preschoolers before you teach them sums, but you ONLY realise it there because it doesn't interfere with your faith.
... The gravity you see at that level is F=mg, which is entirely uncontested.
That would be F=ma
G = mg
Science tends to be exact!
To both me and gweihir below, your comments both boil down to, "You're wrong!" (Though if we include tone, perhaps it should be "Nyah-nyah, you're wrong, sillybutt!") Even if you're correct about either of us being wrong, absent the slightest argument or indication why we're wrong, I can't see why I should care about your contention.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Dog can't change into cat, that's for sure. But it was never a part of evolution theory, right?
It seems that there is fairly strong sentiment on the issue, and if so, there should not be a State legislature voting this crap in.
It is very hard to relocate, and pick up a family, but if the State I were in, the true majority of the people believed this, I would think it time for a permanent field trip.
I think though, that those that feel strongly on the issue are getting to the polls in stronger numbers and tipping the balance in favor of these laws.
Yeah, but the bible doesn't mention gravity so there's no powerful fringe group of crazy people pushing anternative theories down our throat.
The problem with this debate is that one side (science) wants to be fair and impartial and argues on those grounds (as you did quite eloquently).
The other side doesn't care about partiality or fairness. They want to push their religion on society and after having tried numerous other tactics, have fallen back on bastardizing science in order to reach their goal.
This discussion doesn't deserve rational discussion because there is none to have. What we have to do is ridicule them and stop them at every attempt. Every time they claim to have scientists on their side, those "scientists" need to be exposed for who they are. Most of them do not actually have any sort of actual degree, and those who have are likely to have a past of bad science, or not publishing their "results".
I say this with confidence, because if those "scientists" were actually generating good science, the debate would be much more interesting.
One piece missing from this conversation is the positions of the students themselves. The general attitude is that kids are passive learning-receptors that will sit there and listen to whatever a school board requires. But that sure didn't describe the learning environment when I was a young 'un. There was no shortage of students ready to point out bullshit in the classroom. The real victims here, aside from abstract effects upon society, are the kids in the classroom and why aren't they speaking out? Why aren't they starting efforts, the Web or Twitter or whatever, to resist this silliness. If I was still in high school, I'm pretty sure that I'd be trying to organize boycotts, publishing responses to ID curricula that could be read in class, encouraging civil disobedience, etc. If even a few schools are disrupted by an organized response, you know the camera crews will be there.
.
Just sayin'. C'mon, kids, you're the ones who really hold the power here.
Awesome. Simply awesome. And finally. Science is based on Faith (AKA Axioms) and so now they have to admit it. Thank God.
The U.S. is not measuring efforts in creating the dumbest next generation on the planet. Good job.
Jesus Christ is Truth!
Micro-evolution is scientifically verifiable, as it follows the Scientific Method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Essential_criteria; however, cosmic-evolution is a religion. Certain speculations for the big bang, such as uniformity of mass distribution and background radiation, are being used to distort and delude.
If you promote or teach your children any evolutionary theory beyond micro-evolution, you may very well be condemning your children to an eternity in hell. If you teach your children evolution, then you are teaching your children they come from a rock - that their life is meaningless. If you teach your children about the One True God, there is Truth and God supplies the love and sustenance for life.
So the board of education is now setting their students up to no longer go to college? Well I would hate for them to get there and things like Anthropology and Biology make absolutely no sense. Congrats South Carolina... You fail. I am glad I will never send a kid through your education system.
Assuming you believe in evolution, it makes sense for any majority group of people to decide to teach their children something else. I completely support the desire of any group to make their gene pool (children) less successful.
That's one problem with most people, they use "theory" synonymously with "hypothesis". They are not the same. A (scientific) theory is supported by certain facts and accepted by consensus. A hypothesis is as yet untested. Way to many people misuse the terms just like they most often misuse "faith" by equating it with "trust". It would greatly improve understanding if people had clear understandings of the terms they use (or misuse).
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Have the bible in English class as a SF/fantasy book, and discuss and dissect it as such?
If natural selection were true, the SOB and his fellow single-digit, mouth-breathing kin would have died out long ago. Probably along with the dinosaur he rode in on.
Ah, okay. Gotta call Poe's Law on this one. It doesn't really matter if you're serious or not - either way, you're just cherry-picking passages to respond to and not addressing the salient points (e.g., the economic question). So, um... have a nice life, I guess.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!