Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

South Carolina Education Committee Removes Evolution From Standards

Posted by Soulskill on from the that's-just,-like,-your-opinion,-man dept.

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."

82 of 665 comments (clear)

  1. States Rights by gpronger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:States Rights by Supp0rtLinux · · Score: 3, Interesting

      or better... if a majority of them do more poorly than their peers in other states, should they be allowed to form a class action suit against the education peeps or even the state?

    2. Re:States Rights by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But those kids can not get that time back. The morons doing this won't suffer, the students will.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:States Rights by roninmagus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, it should be their prerogative. That's part of the basic foundation of our government, and was choen as the best method of government by intelligent people who had lived under tyrannical absolutes.

      As always, if you disagree with your state's laws, you can attempt to push a vote to change them or move to another state. That sounds dismissive, but it's good that it's an available option. If the law is national and therefore pushed from above, you have no way to get out from under it save moving to another country. Moving to another country is probably not appealing or easy.

    4. Re: States Rights by ChefJesseKmiec · · Score: 5, Informative

      James Madison, the father of both the Constitution and the First Amendment, consistently warned against any attempt to blend endorsement of Christianity into the law of the new nation. "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions," he wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments in 1785, "may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?" Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution conspicuously omits any reference to God.

    5. Re:States Rights by ohnocitizen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't want to have to uproot my family, find a new job, and start a new life in another state just because the state I happen to live in wants to push religious beliefs onto my kids through the public school system. It's abusive and violates separation of church and state. I don't give a damn about state's rights, rights ought to be fundamental - not based on the invisible lines people draw to separate one bit of land from another.

    6. Re:States Rights by MrLint · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      The mere fact that someone should be able to assert that any old idea they have, has equal supportability because of what they assert semantics of words to be, is wrong at best, and megalomaniacal at worst. And we all know that this isn't about "alternate 'theories'" this is about attacking things that don't support the christian creation myth.

      I challenge *any* "teach the controversy" supporter to lay out their syllabus and rubric for *ALL* alternative science theories. As it has been stated above, it would have to include astrology, and alchemy, probably phrenology, humors, and I guess demonic possession.

      You cannot be honest in this "teach the controversy" thing and only do one piece. Doing so is really a lie to yourself, and everyone knows it.

    7. Re:States Rights by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      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.

      Really now, what do you think the chances are that someone who grew up believing that the planet is 6,000 years old would choose a career in science? I'm all for colleges and universities requiring additional science tests for students from states that teach creationism, but I seriously doubt that a large chunk of those kids are going to decide that science is what they want to do with their lives. Unless they accidentally choose a scientific major thinking that they're going to learn about religion.

      One of the best things that Bill Nye said in the recent debate was to encourage people to choose careers in science, and warning that the rash of anti-rationalism is going to have very negative consequences for the US. Those words might have fallen on deaf ears at the creationism museum in Kentucky, but it's the right idea.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    8. Re:States Rights by Elros · · Score: 2

      Then fulfill your responsibility for your child's education and quit outsourcing it to someone you find unsatisfactory.

      Note that I say the same to anyone on any side of this debate (and a few others). If you don't find your child's current teachers/school/curriculum satisfactory than get up off your ass and give them the education you deem proper.

    9. Re:States Rights by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it only fair that if they choose to leverage "State Rights" to give a sub-standard "Faith Based" Educations, then it should be only fair that the Federal Government cut off all forms of Financial Funding for Education and Unemployment.

      Why should US Taxpayers support a bunch of backwards people that want to live in a Theocracy? In fact, I think we should cut Theocratic States off from the US entirely. Seriously, why don't we just end the Union already and let Jesustan and the rest of us go our separate ways?

      Why should the educated, secular States continue to support these backwaters that are filled with racist illiterates that contribute next to nothing to our GDP while consuming a disproportionate amount of Tax dollars in the form of Federal Subsidies?

      How will policies such as this do anything but cause South Carolina to require even greater amounts of Federal Subsidies to support their backward culture of bible banging red necks?

    10. Re:States Rights by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Before anyone makes any anti-rational assumptions about me while reading this post, let me be clear that I'm a staunch defender of evolutionary theory, and I've even defended it here a number of times before.

      Really now, what do you think the chances are that someone who grew up believing that the planet is 6,000 years old would choose a career in science?

      Well, Isaac Newton did, and he even wrote books about details of Biblical chronology.

      And before you tell me, "Everyone believed in that stuff back then!" it isn't true. Newton was a wacko outlier in many ways, including his beliefs that he could show the detailed past chronology of the universe and calculate the date it would end. Many scientists of Newton's time had grave suspicions about those sorts of things, and they would certainly not consider it respectable "science" to write on such matters.

      Nonetheless, Newton managed to come up with some of the greatest advances of all time in a number of areas of physics and mathematics.

      I want to be clear: I don't think creationism should be taught in science classes in schools either, but your logic that no student with a religious upbringing would ever be curious enough about the world to want to study science is faulty.

      In my experience, the reason people choose careers in science has little to do with whether they are religious or not. And unless they want a career in a small group of scientific disciplines, what they think of evolutionary biology is unlikely to play a major role in their work.

      Now, of course, continuing to believe the earth is 6,000 years old -- that's a more difficult one to square with lots of scientific disciplines (from archeology and geology to cosmology), but there are lots and lots of people who are religious but who do not subscribe to that literal belief. Lots of scientists have qualms that evolution has "all the answers," but nevertheless function quite well.

      Not every creationist is a "young earth" creationist (and in fact, I'm pretty sure the vast majority are NOT), and a detailed understanding of evolutionary theory is not required for most scientific study.

      One of the best things that Bill Nye said in the recent debate was to encourage people to choose careers in science, and warning that the rash of anti-rationalism is going to have very negative consequences for the US. Those words might have fallen on deaf ears at the creationism museum in Kentucky, but it's the right idea.

      I don't think you've spent a lot of time reading arguments by the "Creation science" crowd. I'd hardly call them "anti-rationalist" -- they have their brand of reason. They understand very well the way to put together a logical train of thought. They just don't begin with the same axioms as you do for that logical tree. Hence, they might be "anti-empiricist" to some degree.

      I'm not trying to defend it. But regardless of those people, most Christians who just have "faith" in whatever creation story they subscribe to don't tend to think about such things in a "rational" manner. Heck, most humans don't tend to think or act "rationally" most of the time.

      And many people are capable of constructing logical arguments in other areas of thought, even if they subscribe to weird axioms in another one.

      I agree with Bill Nye on a lot of things, but the idea that religious beliefs are some sort of impediment to getting people to sign up to study science, or that such people must be "anti-rationalist" is just nonsense. People -- including even atheist scientists -- are irrational. If anything, it's people like Richard Dawkins and the militant atheist crowd who drive religious people away from studying science... not the religion itself.

      The biggest impediments to getting students to study science in the U.S. probably have to do with stereotypes about "geeks" and "nerds," along with anti-intellectualism. Wanna get people to study science? Change those attitudes first.

    11. Re: States Rights by ChefJesseKmiec · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Make no mistake. As strenuously as Madison argued for religious freedom, it was for the overall benefit of man. Where man sees religion tied to government, he becomes supremely skeptical and cannot see the gospel as the free-gift that it is. This is Madisonâ(TM)s argument. Therefore, the author of the Bill of Rights that would become the Amendments to the Constitution wrote in our First Amendment âoeFreedom of religionâ and not freedom from it. Okay so according to this every religion is free to exist and practice in the United states as long as it is separated from the government. So we should teach every religions version of creation in schools as there is no public school that is only Protestant or only Jewish or only budist or only Islamic. Thank you for pointing this out.

    12. Re:States Rights by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      "move to another state"

      Just enroll your child in the school district where your summer home is located.

    13. Re:States Rights by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3

      Please explain to me how an understanding or lack thereof of evolution impacts my ability to program computers? To be a successful photographer? To be a lawyer? To be a nuclear engineer? Build a bridge? A writer? In fact, any profession other than 'scientist studying evolution'.

      I have never in 10 years of being a very successfully software engineer ever needed to know how old the planet it or where people came from to do my job. It's just never come up. I don't need to know about evolution to build a database or a webpage or a high performance processing system. I have needed to go look up Keplar's equations, figure out how to convert from sidereal time to SI time, model the atmosphere, and parse proc. Age of the earth? Never comes up. Did human's evolve from monkeys? Never comes up. Is there a god? Never comes up.

      Seriously. Get over yourselves. The origins of life are not critical knowledge to the vast majority of the population.

      Are they learning basic math, physics, reading skills? Those are actually important and widely applicable skills.

      Ah! But CRITICAL THINKING! Really? Evolution is the only theory that allows you to impart the skill of critical thinking onto children? Reading literature and building robots don't do this?

      The more things you're ignorant of, the more people tend to think you're probably ignorant of your specialty as well.

      You don't have to be an expert on topics like evolution, but if you're blatantly uninformed, the impression you project is extreme nerdiness. Boring, narrowly-focused, and limited.

      In fact, some have defined one of the differences between being a genius and being a nerd as the breadth of their knowledge. Geniuses are interested in almost everything. They can spare the brainpower and they don't dismiss anything outside their specialty as unimportant. Einsten was a nuclear theorist, but he spent time thinking on why rivers meander, why wet sand underfoot behaves like it does, how yo-yo's work and much more.

    14. Re:States Rights by Aryden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Okay, then why send them to school at all? If I have to sit them down to teach them all the of scientific/mathematical.grammatical/literary/etc, the why the hell have an "outsourced" education system at all?

      The education system should be teaching a defined framework of information across the board. It should not matter if you live in SC or NY, you should be learning the same fundamentals such as math, science, history and literature.

    15. Re:States Rights by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2

      If the majority of people in your state decide to remove math from the curriculum, will you just tell yourself "I don't like, it, I'm going to change it?". How practical is that? How practical is it to expect parents with full time jobs to also function as teachers for whatever topics the religious right decides to remove from the public education system? It's ridiculous, and we don't have to stand for it.

    16. Re:States Rights by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2

      It doesn't matter who you say it to - it's flat out wrong and impractical. We have a public education system for a reason, and expecting parents to pick up the slack if theocratic fundamentalists cripple the education system is insulting.

      I will "get up off my ass" and help campaign to vote religious conservatives out of office though ;).

    17. Re:States Rights by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      There is a constitutional separation of Church and state on state level ever since the 14th Amendment.

    18. Re: States Rights by Immerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >So we should teach every religions version of creation in schools

      Absolutely. That would be in the "mythological literature" section of the curriculum, correct? It certainly shouldn't be *anywhere* near science class, because none of it stands up to scientific analysis.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    19. Re:States Rights by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >By your logic if we didn't introduce kids to things like nuclear technology in high school, no one would go into that field in college.

      No. By his logic- if you don't teach them basic physics, hardly any of them would (or could) go into nuclear technology. Evolution is to modern biology exactly as basic Newtonian physics is to Nuclear Technology - the gateway you need to learn in school the very bottom-layer fundamental pieces of knowledge without which you'll never be able to understand or learn the rest.

      Not to mention - that - by YOUR logic, we may as well scrap art, literature and music programs entirely - after all, very few students will approach them as a career. Yet we keep them - because the one student in the entire history of the school who falls in love with stories and grows up to be a Tolkien or an Asimov or a Vonnegut is worth about a billion times more to society than the cost of having a literature teacher in every school. The one who grows up to be a Picasso or a Dali changes how people see the world for ever. The one in the lifetime of a school who may become a Ronnie James Dio or an Otep Shamaya are worth it all by themselves.

      And the argument for evolution is much, much stronger than that: evolution the ground-work class that starts of nearly the entire supply of medical researchers, zoologists, doctors - hell damn near everybody who in anyway works with biology.
      Scrap it and you will limit your supply of students in these fields almost entirely to private school kids who had the class - and the one or two outliers who read books about it on their own time because of personal interest.

      I know - I live in a country where until almost the end of my high-school career there was no separation of church and state, I went through a school system where evolution was little more than a swear word - and I saw the country that did the world's first heart transplant turn into one that had to import doctors from Cuba just to raise it's healthcare system to the level of "terrible".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  2. Which Creation? by boristdog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Which Creation? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Except it is not an alternative. It has zero scientific merit.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Which Creation? by boristdog · · Score: 5, Funny

      HOW DARE YOU BLASPHEME UDU!

    3. Re:Which Creation? by mathfeel · · Score: 2

      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.

      I have no problem with what you are suggesting either. Just don't do it in a science classroom because none of these are science.

      --
      The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
    4. Re:Which Creation? by boristdog · · Score: 3, Funny

      You will freeze in the frozen swamp of ice crocodiles for suggesting Udu isn't science, but hey, if you want to spend eternity that way instead of frolicking with 187 she-tortoises in the post-life, that's YOUR problem.

    5. Re:Which Creation? by boristdog · · Score: 5, Funny

      Tax the followers of Udu? Would you tax Udu for his shell? His shell that protects YOU from evil?

      No, my fallen friend, you cannot tax the creator of the universe any more than you can tax sheltered offshore profits. They are beyond the reach of little people like you.

      Come back to Udu and you will learn to protect your own "shell" as the followers of Udu protect their "shells" from the evils and tax collectors of the world.

    6. Re:Which Creation? by boristdog · · Score: 2

      It is a silly theory. The followers of Udu know that there are no quanta. There are just smaller and smaller turtles that make up everything. And there is no limit to how small turtles can get.

  3. Re:How is presenting all theories a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Creationism is not a theory. They can discuss any issues with evolution as it currently stands (and any science course worth its salt will teach any student how to think critically)

  4. Pull your head out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Pull your head out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Move evolution to the religion classes because you can't test it

      Except you can. Grad students do it all the time.

      Macro-evolution...micro-evolution...

      ...are entirely meaningless distinctions made only by people who don't know what evolution is and are confused by very long time scales.

    2. Re:Pull your head out by evandrofisico · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the case of the big bang theory, you have some properties of the universe that are predicted by the theory, such as the presence of the background radiation and the uniformity of mass distribution, among others, that are predicted to exist in a universe where a "big bang" occurs. It is a lot like observations from particle accelerators such as the LHC. There are no means to directly measure a many subatomic particles, but you can measure the particles resulting from the expected decays with some confidence, therefore testing aspects of the theory.

  5. Evolution is a theory, but not "just a theory". by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Evolution is a theory, but not "just a theory". by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 2

      Umm... speaking of absolutes...

      A theory doesn't often get proven "completely wrong". Much more often it gets replaced with something that works better in fringe cases. For many practical purposes, the theory that the world is flat works just fine. It won't work for large distances, of course. But quite often I really don't need to worry too much that a triangle on a sphere actually summing up to more than 180 degrees. Again, Newtonian physics works just fine, indeed very well, for many purposes. It wasn't/isn't "completely wrong" as much as it isn't accurate for certain cases. Even if we ever rule out either General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, both will still be incredibly powerful tools in their respective domain.

      To suggest we'll wake up one day and find Evolution is "completely wrong" is a bit silly. First of all, "Evolution" here is an umbrella covering many theories. Second, anything that replaces it will have to address/answer all of the same currently available data. It's much more likely that whatever may replace it will be a superset of it (eg. the recent work on viewing Abiogenisis as a subset of a larger scheme of complex systems) or a refinement.

      And especially in the context of the Evolution vs. Creation debate, we're not going to find out that Evolution is "wrong" therefore Creation must be right. Not at all. Again, whatever would replace Evolution would look a lot like it. And Creationists have yet to put forward anything that would function as a Scientific Theory that could address currently available data.

    2. Re:Evolution is a theory, but not "just a theory". by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

      During the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, the most telling question for me was when both were asked what would change their minds.
      Bill Nye: Show me evidence as to why I'm wrong.
      Ken Ham: Nothing will ever change my mind. No amount of evidence will do so.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Evolution is a theory, but not "just a theory". by gweihir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Cool. Ham directly says he is not interested in truth, just belief and hence does not qualify as rational.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Evolution is a theory, but not "just a theory". by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Ham makes a reasonably good living off of Creationism, so I posit that Ham is eminently rational; but completely immoral. You may call a con man a lot of things, but generally irrational isn't one of them.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Evolution is a theory, but not "just a theory". by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 2

      Well, that's the difference between reason and faith, isn't it? That's why those debates are so stupid. It's two people arguing across different dimensions.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  6. Re:How is presenting all theories a problem? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because there are no other competing scientific theories.

    Do you have a scientific theory that explains what we see, makes prediction, and is factual verified 1000's of time?

    No. This is a politician shoving religion down are throat under a very thin vale. He should be tossed out for violating the constitution.

    Creationism is not science. Not my any stretch. It is a belief made on biblical literalism.

    Maybe you should learn what science is?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  7. Re:who cares? by geekoid · · Score: 2

    There are plenty of jobs. For scientifically literate engineering and science professionals.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  8. Re: How is presenting all theories a problem? by ChefJesseKmiec · · Score: 2

    the problem comes that only a few religions believe in the biblical creation story as fact. Even then it is not agreed between those religions exactly how much of that creation story should be taken as a literal. If we decide to teach creationism in schools we need to cover each religions views (Hindu belief is vastly different than Protestant and they both do not fit with Catholic teachings) as well as the current evolutionary views. This in turn would mean the entire day would need to be spent covering just this one topic. Considering our own constitution states we are to keep religion and state separate ,religious views should be taught at home or in the educational facilities of the religion and not in public schools. You'll never hear a school teaching my faiths creation story so why should any other religions story be taught?

  9. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by gpronger · · Score: 2

    The Catholic Church is pretty comfortable with the theory of evolution thingie.

  10. Teach the controversy, but define it first by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

    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...
    1. Re: Teach the controversy, but define it first by ChefJesseKmiec · · Score: 2

      except Catholics, the vast majority of Orthodox Jews and mainstream Islam do believe in evolution and the old universe theories to a good extent. even within the evangelical community you have differing views on accepting old universe and evolution.the most noted are ken ham for the yec and Dr. John Walton for oec. note ken ham has read the Bible, Dr. Walton is a doctorial professor that studies the ancient Hebrew ot and the civilization that it pertained to. how can we realistically teach mixed beliefs in faith over science without turning the entire schooling experience into that lesson?

  11. Re:How is presenting all theories a problem? by Spazmania · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Creationism is not a theory.

    Sure it is. It just isn't a *scientific* theory.

    A scientific theory makes testable predictions. Experiments can be devised whose results confirm or refute the predictions. Knowledge can be collected from the environment which either fits or refutes the predictions. That's what makes it science.

    Creationism and it's stepchild Intelligent Design make no testable predictions. Therefore they are not science. Therefore they do not belong in a science curriculum.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  12. Re:How is presenting all theories a problem? by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Creationism actually is a theory. It is just not supported by evidence at all and quite a few established facts contradict it. So it is a theory with a very low probability of being a model for reality and hence not worthy of study.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  13. Re:How is presenting all theories a problem? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only when there are other theories worthy of discussion. As far as scientific credibility goes, creationism is ridiculous. I'm all for silencing any discussion of creationism in schools - alongside astrology, palm-reading and other fields of nonsense.

  14. Excellent! by DontBlameCanada · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Further erosion of the American education system means less competition for those of us (and our kids) living elsewhere in world.

    1. Re:Excellent! by Thomasje · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It also means a country full of religious hotheads, who are going to view their own increasingly bleak existence as the result of a conspiracy of all those godless people in Europe and Asia. You sure you're enthusiastic about that kind of development in a country as heavily armed as the U.S.? I'd rather see them be smart, personally.

  15. Re:law of gravity by Spazmania · · Score: 2

    Actually, according to your reference there is both a theory of gravity and a law of gravity.

    The law quantitatively documents what happens.

    The theory attempts to explain why.

    There is no law of evolution. We can't reliably quantify it. If that tells you nothing else, it should tell you to place much greater confidence in gravity than evolution. Which returns us to my thesis: that arguing equivalent confidence in evolution and gravity is as oafish as arguing equivalent confidence in creationism and evolution.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  16. Science should not be taught as fact. by Kenja · · Score: 2

    It should be taught as science.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  17. Re:How is presenting all theories a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The government needs to get out of the business of policing ideas.

    Get the government out of the public school system!!!

  18. Re:law of gravity by gweihir · · Score: 2

    Indeed. And a lot of it, and only very little against it. That makes it a "well established" theory. Creationism, on th other hand, has basically no evidence for it and a lot against it. That makes it a "crackpot" theory.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  19. Re:How is presenting all theories a problem? by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 2

    My chemistry taught me alchemy, my biology teacher taught me creationism. They both said that there is no evidence whatsoever that any of that stuff is true, while they also taught me that evolution has strong evidences and that many alchemy "magic" can now be scientifically demonstrated by chemistry.

  20. To the Honorable Sen. Fair by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:To the Honorable Sen. Fair by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 3, Funny
      Sadly, I don't think Sen. Fair is on /.

      ... but if he were, he would love Beta!

  21. Your point of view means nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Your point of view means nothing. by noh8rz10 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      creationism is a Judeo-Christian belief. hwat if you're not Christian? what if you're hindu? are hindu theories taught as well? surely they are just as valid as judeo chrisian theories from a neutral perspective.

    2. Re:Your point of view means nothing. by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      creationism is a Judeo-Christian belief. hwat if you're not Christian? what if you're hindu? are hindu theories taught as well? surely they are just as valid as judeo chrisian theories from a neutral perspective.

      Creationism is pretty common among most world religions. Its just the details and deities that change. In Hinduism Vishnu commanded Brahma to grow the world out of an ocean via a lotus flower. Still creationism, just a very different version.

      That's why they cling to "Intelligent Design". By doing that and leaving out the details they can at least not have their children taught something that directly contradicts what they learn in Sunday school.

      As someone who is non-religious that grew up in a religious family, the GGP's post does pretty much fall spot on. Most of these people are misinformed, but their 'heart is in the right place". You have to understand that to an atheist, its very easy to sit back and "respect everyone's beliefs". That's because they truly see all of them as simple stories and culture. To a Christian though, that actually do truly believe that if you don't live your life according to their beliefs, then you're going to Hell. They see all of their annoyances and pestering as trying to help you avoid a fate that they are terrified of, and they regard teaching their children anything that contradicts these beliefs with great disdain.

      I'm not saying that I support removing evolution from the criteria (quite the contrary - I've argued with my religious mother many times in support of evolution) - I'm just saying that to truly understand their motives you have to understand where they're coming from.

      Its hard to convince someone of something that they absolutely KNOW is not true - even when it is.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:Your point of view means nothing. by penglust · · Score: 2

      I was 12 or 13 when I told my parents I was no longer going to church and it was all a lot of bunk. At first it was an issue. Now 40 years later they don't believe anymore either. I guess you can teach an old dog a new trick.

    4. Re:Your point of view means nothing. by Nephandus · · Score: 2

      Evolution is as verifiably a fact as gravity is. The theory part refers only to certain details, just like gravity or particle theory. Natural selection acting on what would otherwise be genetic drift causes adaption and eventual speciation. This is scientific law, established by direct observation not merely inference. ID is half-baked ad-hoc bullshit. It's inconsistent with observation, which figures since it's non-falsifiable and makes claims using admittedly undefined entities, and I don't just mean your quasi-big-bang-as-a-pseudo-person. As Pauli said, "it is not even wrong" in a scientific sense. There's no coherent basis for it to even qualify as a scientific hypothesis. It was never meant to be.

      --
      "A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
  22. Next week rage on falling STEM ranking by RichMan · · Score: 3, Informative

    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?

  23. "Theory" does not equal "Hunch" in science by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  24. I don't think gravity is a good counter example. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  25. Re:How is presenting all theories a problem? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    And natural selection isn't a philosophy, any more than the inverse square law is a philosophy.

    It goes to show you that just because you can pronounce a word does not bequeath upon you any understanding.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  26. Re:How is presenting all theories a problem? by Crimey+McBiggles · · Score: 5, Informative

    No one said anything about "provable" above. You seem confused between "provable" and "testable". Evolution as an origin of species is certainly testable, as we have built models from fossil records into which archaeological findings seem to fit nicely. Intelligent Design is a lost cause from the get-go, as it relies on the absence of evidence to insist upon the point that "you gotta believe" that we were created in our present form, and evolution from ape to human never occurred... because you know... some people find it threatening to think their ancestors might have been apes.

    --
    Crimey
  27. Re:How is presenting all theories a problem? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First of all, evolution is simply the observation that the genetic makeup of a population changes over time. It is not an attempt to explain the origins of life, any more than geology attempts to explain the origin of planets or astronomy attempts to explain the Big Bang.

    Second of all, evolution is testable by every meaningful scientific definition of test, and so is abiogenesis for that matter.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  28. Re: Didn't Ken Ham lose? by ChefJesseKmiec · · Score: 2

    http://biologos.org/blog/ham-o... their is a large body of Christian doctoral professors that have voiced their thoughts on that debate. it is a good read.

  29. If we're the 99% by log0n · · Score: 3, Funny

    does this make South Carolina the bottom 2%?

  30. Do you believe in democracy, or not? by jdavidb · · Score: 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.
    1. Re:Do you believe in democracy, or not? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We put all sorts of limits on democracy. You can't democratically decide to enslave all red haired people. Even if the popular will is that red haired people are subhumans who can be treated like cattle, there are constitutional protections against this kind of an abuse. In other words, in most Western countries, and most certainly in the United States, the constitutional framers were all to aware that pure democracy; or mobocracy if you will, is as vulnerable to abuses against individual liberties as are governments.

      The same applies to public education. As public schools are a branch of the government, the Establishment Clause applies to them, and thus teaching Creationism, even in the watered down form of Intelligent Design, is a blatant attempt to use the organs of state to push a specific set of religious beliefs. That was the finding of the Kitzmiller v. Dover, and while the trial sadly doesn't apply universally, it, coupled with judgments like Edwards v. Aguillard create a compelling set of case law that will likely demolish just about every attempt to sneak Creationism into the class, or to somehow earmark evolution as being controversial.

      But really, particularly at the state level, politicians don't give a flying fuck about constitutionality. They probably know in most cases that any pro-Creationism law they try to pass will ultimately get tossed, but that makes vote-getting legislation even better, as when it gets tossed, they can make a lot of noise about meddling activist courts, and the deluded idiots who lap this kind of performance up nod their heads in agreement. It's a win win for these politicians, although it does become a tragic waste of taxpayer money.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  31. Re:How is presenting all theories a problem? by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 2

    Sure, we can't observe the early Earth (at least not until or unless we discover time travel.) But we can simulate conditions on the early Earth and see what happens. In fact, the Miller-Urey experiments and others have done and are doing this, and they've found some very interesting results. It'll be interesting to see what would or will happen if such an experiment were done on a larger scale and left undisturbed for a longer period of time.

  32. Re:How is presenting all theories a problem? by RazorSharp · · Score: 2

    It was created as a method of control and manipulation over the masses.

    There's no empirical evidence to back up this claim. Even those religions which were used as a form of control were usually not created for that reason. Sure, it could be argued that Confucianism fits your model, and probably a few others, but I sincerely doubt Jesus of Nazareth went around preaching about peace and love so Constantine could use his ideas as a form of control ~300 years later.

    Religion is not a thing that was invented in one part of the world and spread from there. Many religions throughout the world developed completely independent from each other at different times. Personally, I think most of them were inspired by something good. But many ideas can be warped and perverted and turned into something terrible -- I doubt Marx would approve of Stalin's version of Communism just as I doubt Jesus would approve of American Evangelicals' version of Christianity.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  33. It Could Be Worse by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    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
  34. Wrong argument by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    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.

  35. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by hondo77 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm an atheist, dumbass.

    --
    I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  36. Scientific theories vs. things that might be true by davidwr · · Score: 2

    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.
  37. Some religious schools teach science ... by perpenso · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  38. Re:Believers do study science ... by perpenso · · Score: 2

    That's fantastic, truly. I wonder how Monseigneur Georges Lemaitre would feel if he found out that in 2014 that religious groups were actively seeking to have sound science removed from educational materials in favor of religion.

    The Catholics and many Protestant denominations don't see a disagreement between scientific discoveries and religion. They believe science and religion answer different questions, how vs why, so one is not a substitute for the other. They teach science in their science class and religion in their religion class.

  39. No big deal by albacrankie · · Score: 2

    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.

  40. Re:law of gravity by TrekkieGod · · Score: 2

    Actually, according to your reference there is both a theory of gravity and a law of gravity.

    The law quantitatively documents what happens.

    The theory attempts to explain why.

    Correct, and that's true whether the theory is proven or not. The point he was making is that theories don't become laws. They're separate concepts. That evolution happens is a fact, and an observable fact. The details of which mutations happened when, where exactly an extinct species lies in terms of being an ancestor to a current species of part of a failed branch closely related to the said ancestor, the role of epigenetics, these things can be revised. As scientists discover more evidence, they refine those details.

    There is no law of evolution.

    The analogous part you're looking for here would be the law of natural selection. That's a directly observable thing, which is that new species come about as a result of mutation and environmental selection of existing species. Just like the law of gravity, nobody is every going to say gravity doesn't exist, or that evolution through natural selection doesn't exist. The details of how those things happen get refined, but the main thrust of it will never go away any more than Newton's Laws went away with the Theory of Relativity (hey look. Theories superseding laws??? Madness!!)

    We can't reliably quantify it.

    Buddy, we can reliably quantify so many things about it, it's not even funny. We can build a family tree of species using the same DNA evidence and methods that can be used to build your family tree. We can date fossils at 60 million years old and we can even quantify that uncertainty at about plus or minus a million years. We can quantify the rate of mutations happening in a population. We can examine similarities, and we can tell when certain genes appeared or disappeared. For example, did you know most mammals can make their own vitamin C through absorption of sunlight, as well as vitamin D like we can? Actually, we have that vitamin C creation gene as well. So how come we get scurvy if we don't get vitamin C through our diet? Turns out our vitamin C-making gene is defective, as a result of a mutation. The same defect exists in other primates like chimps. So we can examine the DNA of related species, figure out which ones have the defect and which don't, and you know the mutation first occurred in a species that was the common ancestors to all of those that have the defect, but not all the way back to a common ancestor that encompasses species which do not have a defect, and maintain a working gene.

    Which returns us to my thesis: that arguing equivalent confidence in evolution and gravity is as oafish as arguing equivalent confidence in creationism and evolution.

    In a way, there is a lot of confidence in creationism. It's provably wrong, we have 100% confidence in that. It can't be refined into something that works, the fundamental idea is incorrect. In the example I gave above regarding figuring out when a mutation occurred, I could have used an example of an additional feature, instead of the removal of a feature (same method. Compare species that have and don't have the feature, feature must have developed after common ancestor to both groups). I chose that one, because it completely disproves not only creationism, but also intelligent design. A lot of creationists like to say, "of course we have so many similarities in DNA. They were all created by the same creator, who re-used the same genes." But given the vitamin C problem, that creator just happened to make a mistake copying that common gene around to his favored species that is supposed to rule the earth. And before you can say, "maybe he didn't want us to be able to have that feature, because he wanted to force us to eat vitamin C containing fruits," you'll have to explain why he made the same mistake with the non-planet-ruling primates.

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  41. Re:How is presenting all theories a problem? by f()rK()_Bomb · · Score: 2

    Here you go. Testable, duplicatable example of evolution. http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

    --
    "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
  42. Re:How is presenting all theories a problem? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    This betrays are rather huge ignorance of what is meant by "testing" in science. Testing doesn't just mean having pictures or video of events. It means making predictions about what we ought to find if we go looking, and evolutionary theory makes predictions about what we should find in the fossil and molecular data.

    And fuck, pal, even Darwin himself came up with a perfectly utilitarian theory of sexual selection. Read a fucking book by a fucking biologist and quit aping long debunked Creationist crap. It only makes you look like an ignorant fucktard.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.