Freedom of Information Requests Turn Up Creationist Materials In Schools

An anonymous reader writes: In 2008, Louisiana passed a law that was designed to let teachers introduce creationism into public classrooms alongside evolution. Zack Kopplin, a student at the time, decided to fight the law by sending Freedom Of Information Act requests to the schools, asking for anything mentioning creationism or the law itself. While most ignore him, he has received documents showing a clear anti-science stance from school officials. "In one, which appears to contain a set of PowerPoint slides, there's a page titled "Creationism (Intelligent Design)" that refers students to the Answers in Genesis website, along with two other sites that are critical of that group's position. In another, a parent's complaint about a teacher who presents evolution as a fact is met by a principal stating that 'I can assure you this will not happen again.'"

Comments

The Dark Age returns

[Anonymous Coward]

A generation or two of youth that are prejudiced against scientific understanding. Our future leaders.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Kokuyo]

So what? The following generations might just as well embrace scientific methods and knowledge exactly because their leaders talk rubbish.

The counter trend will follow.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Barsteward]

" yet it was never (and likely never will be) directly observed." - that pegs your colours to the mast as to which side of the argument you stand

"Climate change is another area of "science" that's closer to religion than it is to actual science." yet another daft observation.

"They're taking a rational look at science, seeing that in many cases it is just a new form of religion," - you have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[turbidostato]

Who's right and who's wrong is a matter of "perspective."

As much as it has the "cool, open minded factor", that's wrong.

"I know this is infuriating to scientifically minded people, who believe in absolute, measurable truths."

You know what a strawman argument is, don't you?

Re:The Dark Age returns

[msauve]

Attacking his every statement with an ad hominem only hurts your argument.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[dave420]

The conclusions of the study in to climate change aredrawn from impartial and objective analysis of the collected data. You thinking otherwise doesn't change that fact, and makes you look like one of the anti-science lunatics you are attempting to attack. Why should anyone respect science when chucklefucks like you feel entitled to disparage an entire field of science because you assume it to be corrupt, due to their discoveries being at odds with whatever political machinery lives in your head.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Anonymous Coward]

scientifically minded people, who believe in absolute, measurable truths

No, scientifically minded people don't believe in absolute measurable truths. Scientifically minded people believe in the scientific method. The scientific method doesn't measure "truths", just what is the closest thing to it using the method we have. Scientific method, and ergo scientifically minded people, are open to those measurable "truths" to be revised and improved as new discoveries come along.

You're free to now use the scientific method. You're free to try to find answers in other ways. That's not the issue.

The issue here is trying to teach your way, which is at best pseudoscience, in a SCIENCE class. How about we let them teach evolution in church and religion class?

But be honest with yourself and admit what you don't know.

That is closer to what a scientifically minded person would say. Science doesn't claim to know everything, for sure. Science is just saying that this theory [of evolution, big bang, etc] is the best theory we have come up with using what is observable and following the scientific method, and until/less something better comes along, we'll use that to continue our search for answers using the scientific method.

Again, you're free to believe in theories that don't follow the scientific method, and use that as your basis to search for truth. You might even succeed in finding answers that way. That's not the point. The point is to teach that outside of science class. Science class is about teaching people to find answers our through the scientific way.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[KingSkippus]

You don't need to directly observe something in order to prove that it exists. That notion is a load of hooey propagated by someone with no scientific knowledge or experience.

I have never been to New York City. There's a chance that I might never go. But I have seen ample evidence that it exists that I don't need to actually go there to accept as indisputable fact that it is real.

The key there is evidence. I don't reject the evidence of New York City's existence simply because I don't want to believe that it's not there. If, on the other hand, someone were try to believe that the city of Atlanta doesn't exist, I would take strong exception to that because I've been there and I know firsthand that it does exist.

The problem with Creationists--and the reason it has NO place in a science class--is that they expect people to reject all evidence for a universe billions of years old and all evidence that the Theory of Evolution is correct in favor of another idea for which ZERO evidence exists, an idea for which mountains of evidence in fact disproves. That is the antithesis of science.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[alexgieg]

The problem is that schools don't teach science. They "proclaim truths" (without actually going to the trouble of step-by-step proving every single one), then require students to repeat those memorized proclamations to "pass". Teaching science is teaching the scientific method, and teaching it in practice.

Want students to learn evolutions for real, to the point of never, even, being ABLE to believe religious bullshit? Here's how: help them discover evolution themselves. First make them know falseability better than their own names, by guiding them through discovering newtonian mechanics or something like that. Then, when they've mastered the scientific method, switch from classic physics to classic biology, presenting them the same raw data Darwin had collected, and require them to figure that one out by following the same standards. And presto: now you have a generation that both embraces the scientific method and cannot deny evolution.

Until educational standards are that high though, sorry, but for the vast majority of people science and religions will remain similar and roughly interchangeable: someone in the pulpit speaking about esoteric stuff, and listeners blindly accepting (or pretending to) it as such "because authority", and because that's what's socially expected from them.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[turbidostato]

"No, it's not. Now what?"

It still is. You can stand in the middle of a railway and let a train pass over you. The result won't be a matter of perspective.

There are, of course, assertions that there are debatable. But then there also are assertions that are either right or wrong, not a matter of perspective.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Sique]

Look at astrophysics again. And really look at it.

While we can't observe a new Big Bang (the last one happened 13.7 billion years ago), we can observe the results from the Big Bang. We can for instance observe the redshift of far away stars and galaxies. We can also observe the cosmic background radiation. The Big Bang gives a very consistent description of what we can tell about the cosmos around us, and no alternative explanation comes even close.

But you would probably also claim that the explosion of the Krakatoa volcano in 1883 is "just untestable speculation passed of as fact", because no one survived who saw the actual magma coming out of the mountain. And the reports of a big smoke cloud, tsunamis and earth quakes could have been caused by something else. And we don't even know if they really happened, because all we have are just written reports, like the Bible, right? And going to Krakatoa and finding large layers of volcanic ash which buried the remainings of people and houses and animals and which look as if they were around 130 years old are so very indirect that the actual volcanic eruption still can be called "speculation" in your world, right?

The same goes for Climate science. We have the daily weather report, but the theories that allow us to predict the weather (yes, the single event, and not just the long term average), are "closer to religion than to science"? We have complete daily weather data (yes, the actual measurements done by real humans with real instruments) for some regions of the world starting in the early 18th century, and for most of the world starting in mid-19th century, and drawing them in a diagram and describing the resulting long term average as going upward is "closer to religion than to science"? Please elaborate!

Maybe what you picture for yourself as science has some serious flaws, but that's the problem with the picture of science you have. Not a problem of the sciences.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Anonymous Coward]

Attacking his every statement with an ad hominem only hurts your argument.

At what point do statements become so ridiculous that they should be ridiculed rather than people wasting time trying to refute them? Does someone who claims the Earth is flat deserve a (time consuming) detailed, rational argument with references to the science? Same goes with someone claiming evolution is not fact. I have no time trying to convince a crazy person that they have not been abducted by aliens - mainly because they are crazy and will never change their mind anyway. Nor do I have time trying to convince religious nuts that evolution is fact, for the same reason.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Dunbal]

Call me when you see people killing each other over the validity or not of the Big Bang theory.

No one has to "respect" science. Anyone who claims that science is infallible does not understand science at all. What children are taught is the scientific method which is easy to understand and stands for itself. Observation, questioning, hypothesis, experimentation, checking to see if your experiment falsifies your hypothesis or not. That's it. There is no more than this.

The method is quite perfect - it has to be, because it is a logical model. The humans who apply it are far from perfect. Science is open to perjury and falsification. And when no one bothers to reproduce experiments because of either apathy, cost, or the convoluted nature of the subject, fantastic claims can be made and can stand for a long time without challenge. But even in the most ludicrous scientific claim there is some grain of truth. At some point even if the hypothesis is wrong, the initial observation had to exist because science is about trying to explain the world we can observe around us.

Religion on the other hand tries to create a reality from a fantasy. It starts with something that does not exist, and then tries to justify it.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[soccerisgod]

The problem with Creationists--and the reason it has NO place in a science class--is that they expect people to reject all evidence for a universe billions of years old and all evidence that the Theory of Evolution is correct in favor of another idea for which ZERO evidence exists, an idea for which mountains of evidence in fact disproves. That is the antithesis of science.

No. The problem with creationism isn't that it's idiotic science, the problem is that it is not science at all but religion. If you teach that instead of or in addition to the scientific theory of evolution, I might as well demand that they teach my personal theory that the earth is really just a ball of smeg on someone's wiener.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[jandersen]

There is an old joke, told by Dave Allen (can be found on Youtube):

The Pope is discussing with an atheist, and the Pope says: "You atheists are like a blind man, searching in a dark room for a black cat that isn't there!" - and the atheist replies: "Well, we are not so different, in fact - you Catholics too are like a blind man, search a dark room for a black cat that isn't there; but you believe you've found it!"

Re:The Dark Age returns

[naris]

Well, a bunch of people wrote a bunch of parts of a manuscript based on stories passed down for a couple of thousand years, which was then gathered together by a bunch of other people over the course of several hundred years to produce a book. Apparently that is all the evidence they need to prove everything.

Also, anything not in said book can not exist as that book is the sole source of truth in the universe!

Re:The Dark Age returns

[zerosomething]

The problem with Creationists--and the reason it has NO place in a science class--is that they expect people to reject all evidence for a universe billions of years old and all evidence that the Theory of Evolution is correct in favor of another idea for which ZERO evidence exists, an idea for which mountains of evidence in fact disproves. That is the antithesis of science.

This is where you completely misunderstand those who believe in a supreme being. They DO see evidence of existence every time they go to Church, Synagog, Mosque, Temple, etc. Grandma recovered from cancer, it's a miracle from God. Bobby is alcohol free after 5 years, by the grace of God. I'm successful and not on the street, because I go to Church. etc etc. Just like you have been to Atlanta they have been in the presence of God. So for them there's plenty of evidence of the existence of God and that their life long religion, or the one that took them in when they were down, shows them the power of "faith" every day.

Faith, the belief in things not provable, is extremely powerful and it doesn't help one bit when science relies on it for some of their biggest theories, such as string theory and a few others.

Re: The Dark Age returns

[Anonymous Coward]

1/ He is not suggesting, he is writting something
2/ He is not writting that observation is not a critical aspect of science, he is writting that indirect observation is also a valid observation.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Black Parrot]

You don't need to directly observe something in order to prove that it exists. That notion is a load of hooey propagated by someone with no scientific knowledge or experience.

I would have said, by someone who desperately needs to dismiss a shitload of evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[tmosley]

Eh, not really. The trend is very clearly against religion. With the internet, everyone can look and see everything that is wrong with it on their own. From self-contradictions to huge tracts of it filled with ideology that is completely foreign to modern (superior) morality. No, we don't stone people to death for eating meat on Fridays, nor for being gay, nor for any number of other idiotic things.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[gnasher719]

It still is. You can stand in the middle of a railway and let a train pass over you. The result won't be a matter of perspective.

Actually, that's where relativity theory comes in. After the experiment, the train is in a relatively better shape than you are.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[gnasher719]

" yet it was never (and likely never will be) directly observed." -

That's totally untrue. There's a kind of butterfly which loves to sit on the trunks of birch trees, and has a colour that makes it practically invisible to predators on that background. There comes industrial pollution and birch trees are not white anymore but more or less gray, with the butterflies clearly visible. Within a few generations, very strong natural selection made them change their colour to a dirty gray. Then things get cleaned up, no unlimited emissions from power stations, birch trees get whiter, guess what: The butterflies got whiter.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[StatureOfLiberty]

First of all, most people don't know what the big bang theory really says. It says the universe is expanding and cooling. It says nothing about how it was created.

Then:
It is not "untestable speculation". Science is about making observations. Then proposing an explanation for those observations (hypotheses). Then testing those hypotheses. These can often be tested by other observations. It happens all of the time. In 1927 an expanding universe theory was proposed based on observed red shift of certain objects in the sky. In 1929 Hubble was able to verify the red shift and show that the further away objects were from earth the larger the amount of shift. Again, this fits with an expanding universe. In 1948 physicists speculated there would be cosmic microwave background noise signature of this expansion. In 1964 Penzias and Wilson happened across this cosmic microwave background noise (which they weren't even looking for). Well, the case for the big bang theory got a little stronger. No test tubes were harmed in the making of this observation.

What has not been found yet is anything that makes the big bang theory incompatible with what we observe.

Can we go back in time and observe the beginning of the big bang? Of course not. Can we duplicate it? No. Can we make observations? Yes Do those observations show that the observable universe is expanding over time? Yes. Do you have a better theory than the big bang theory (one that can be tested)? No.

People act like scientists just get together in a big room and make up theories and present them as fact. No, scientists make observations, create hypotheses to explain their observations and then come up with ways to test those hypotheses. And sometimes those tests simply involve other observations.

Science has it's struggles. Yes there are those who have their pet theories and are willing to fund research that is favorable to their cause. But, in the long run, scientific method takes care of that. In the end, what can be observed will trump what can be bought. The all powerful Roman Catholic Church lost the 'Earth is the center of the universe' argument because of what could be observed. Of course, we later learned that the Sun isn't the center of the universe either. But that did not change the fact that the Earth was not.

Anyone who thinks science is just another religion, doesn't understand science (or religion).

Re:The Dark Age returns

[sribe]

That's totally untrue. There's a kind of butterfly which loves to sit on the trunks of birch trees...

At this point, even speciation (in plants) has been directly observed. Too bad the post to which you were responding stated that the Big Bang was never directly observed, not evolution ;-)

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with Creationists--and the reason it has NO place in a science class--is that they expect people to reject all evidence for a universe billions of years old and all evidence that the Theory of Evolution is correct in favor of another idea for which ZERO evidence exists, an idea for which mountains of evidence in fact disproves. That is the antithesis of science.

This is where you completely misunderstand those who believe in a supreme being. They DO see evidence of existence every time they go to Church, Synagog, Mosque, Temple, etc. Grandma recovered from cancer, it's a miracle from God.

And conveniently how angry they were at God earlier for giving Grandma cancer in the first place.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[fulldecent]

I'm going to call Godwin on that string theory remark

Re:The Dark Age returns

[fulldecent]

Calling... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:The Dark Age returns

[silentcoder]

>So now you move from ad hominem attacks to conflation, associating rejection of evolution with flat earth and alien abductions.

You're right, it's certainly possible that somewhere among the thousands of claimants of alien abduction is one that actually WAS abducted and did not just had a case of sleep paralysis. It should not be conflated with things which are conclusively refuted like flat earth or evolution denial.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[narcc]

Stop that

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Bing Tsher E]

After the experiment, the train is in a relatively better shape than you are.

No, it isn't. It has drying traces of you smeared all over it.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[publiclurker]

but statements of fact only show how stupid the original poster actually is.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[kilfarsnar]

I'm going to call Godwin on that string theory remark

You know who else was a multi-dimensional vibrating string? Hitler!

Re:The Dark Age returns

[holmstar]

If you aren't correcting for errors in data collection then your conclusions will be wrong. When you're dealing with measurements made over decades, the only way to deal with errors in data collection of those past measurements is to apply corrections. You cant co back and take new measurements. Also, it's not as though they're just saying, "this doesn't agree with my opinion, I'll just change all the measurements by this much". They're looking at unexpected discrepancies and trying to determine why they exist. For example, recently researchers noticed ocean temperature measurements collected by buoys read consistently lower than measurements collected by ships. The buoys are reading accurately, and the ships appear to be reading high. (not surprising, given that ships have engines that release heat) Before the pause, most of our ocean temperature measurements were made via ships. At the beginning of the "pause" we were moving away from ships and toward primarily buoy based measurements. This created an artificial drop in the average temperature that was due to changes in measurement, not changes in the actual temperature. If this is corrected for (adjust the measurements made by ships down a specific amount determined by the typical difference between ships and buoys) then the global warming pause completely disappears. The researchers didn't set out to make it disappear, it just came out of the data.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[PitaBred]

That's not even the argument. The argument is "God did it, shut up or I'll kill you."

Re:The Dark Age returns

[PitaBred]

The Red Shift is explainable by Last Thursdayism. Duh.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[CylanR77]

Unfortunately I think you'll find that your example won't change any minds because:

1. Creationists won't accept this as an example of evolution. What they're looking to "disprove" is the idea that man evolved from apes, or rather that given time, one kind of animal species will transform into a completely new and distinct species. But in your example the moths are still moths, just in a different color.

2. More seriously you can't fight illogic with logic.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[PitaBred]

Yeah, that old doctoring numbers bit... you know, my speedometer doctors numbers, too. It doesn't tell me how fast the axle is turning, it tells me something in miles per hour. They're changing the numbers! Adjusting it for things such as wheel size! It's obviously fake. Just like climate science.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Anonymous Coward]

That will wash off, maybe a bit of paint, and good as new. You , not quite so possible...

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Jon_S]

My kingdom for mod points!!

This!!

Scientists don't "believe" period.

Scientists look at the universe of observations and develop models that best describe those observations. If other observations come along, they adjust the model. If the model can be used to develop predictions, they look for those predicted outcomes, and if different outcomes happen, the model is changed.

Evolution is the best model to describe a huge volume of observations about species. Scientists don't "believe" in evolution.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[MattskEE]

The Big Bang Theory is a superb example of this. It's treated as absolute and indisputable fact, yet it was never (and likely never will be) directly observed.

That's quite incorrect. The Big Bang Theory is treated as the best explanation that we have, for now, for explaining a combination of observations. I'm not saying that all middle school teachers get this subtle but important point across in their science classes, but rest assured that the scientists themselves are familiar with it. And if a better explanation comes along that fits the data better than the big bang then scientists will eventually jump ship to the better theory.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Attila Dimedici]

Except of course as soon as the industrial pollution was reduced so that the dark butterflies were visible again, the butterflies reverted to the same colour they were before. It turns out that these butterflies actually come in both light and dark colours all the time. The difference being that when the bark of the trees they typically rest upon are white, birds see, and eat, the dark butterflies. When the bark is dark, the birds see, and eat, the white butterflies. As a result, when the bark is dark, there are few white butterflies, when the bark is white, there are few dark butterflies. If the change involved actual evolution, the butterflies coloration would not have reverted as soon as the color of the bark did. (BTW, there are serious problems with the original study upon which that butterfly story is based.)

Re:The Dark Age returns

[avatar avatar]

"A generation or two"? I'm pretty sure we've been cranking out anti-science leaders for quite a few centuries more than that.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[dave420]

That is not "essentially happening". Let's fleshen out your example:

You are tasked with recording the temperature of every day of 1962, at noon (apparent solar time). Every day you take a temperature measurement, and describe when and how it was taken. You release the data and the description of your method. Good work! You've just given some data to the science community, which is a lovely thing to do, and everyone rightly thinks you're a real hoopy frood.

Now, the years pass and someone wants to use your data, as they are very interested in the temperatures in your part of the world in 1962. They take your numbers, and look at how they were collected. They notice that you used a "Blogg's Perfect Thermometer", which a year after you made your measurements were shown to be poorly calibrated. The researcher then finds the likely amount the thermometer is off by (by whatever method they can - testing lots of those thermometers, etc.), and then uses that to correct your data. Now your data is even more accurate! You should be very happy.

Then, someone else looks at this data, and notices that you took the temperature at mid-day, not apparent solar time. To fix this, they use another source of temperatures to work out the difference on each day apply it to your data. Your data is now even more accurate! Yay! Happy times!

At no point did anyone simply look at your data and go "fuck it I don't like this let's change it" - they saw errors in the measurement methodology, quantified them, and corrected each point. The end result is more accurate data. The most recent climate-related data correction you are probably referring to was the buoy measurements, which showed a difference between ship-born measurements and the buoys' measurements. They're both measuring the same thing, so clearly there is some calibration issue or another problem in the methodology, as they should be returning the same values. They identified the problem and calculated the difference, and could then choose to apply it to the shipping temperatures, or to the buoy temperatures. Either is fine, as they are interested in the change of temperature rather than the actual temperature itself. They chose to change the buoy temperatures as the data set is less. That's it. At no point was anything dodgy done, though I can imagine to someone who doesn't want their findings to be believed would see something shady in it. That speaks more of you than of the scientists :)

Re:The Dark Age returns

[ultranova]

At what point do statements become so ridiculous that they should be ridiculed rather than people wasting time trying to refute them? Does someone who claims the Earth is flat deserve a (time consuming) detailed, rational argument with references to the science?

Never. If you are rational and your opponent is not, turning the debate into an irrational dirt-throwing contest is to your disadvantage. Either write a rational argument or pass, those are the winning options.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[riondluz]

Long bone, long bone, lotsa little bones.

We're snowflakes, but hardly special.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Penguinisto]

That's cute, but you do realize that Catholicism is perfectly okay with Evolution as valid science, right?

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Kierthos]

A point you may be missing is that none of those you mentioned pulled a "I don't know, therefore Jesus" out of their hat. Boyle, for example, was a pious Anglican, but that didn't stop him from performing scientific experimentation.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Kierthos]

The problem is, with an omnipotent God, isn't everything an "Act of God"?

"Bobby didn't kick his meth habit. God's will, I suppose."

"Hey, a bus just hit that mime, yay Jesus!"

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Fuzi719]

Pointing out that a fool is a fool is simply demonstrative, not argumentative. Your protestations serve no purpose other than to assuage the poor fool's feelings, rather lamentably, nonetheless.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[a whoabot]

Scientists believe things all the time. How could you possibly say otherwise?

Here is a sampling peer-reviewed scientific papers where scientists state what they believe. All I did was search Google Scholar for "we believe".

"We believe that these carcinogens have in common a ring system sufficiently planar for a stacking interaction with DNA base pairs and a part of the molecule capable of being metabolized to a reactive group: these structural features are discussed in terms of the theory of frameshift mutagenesis." http://www.pnas.org/content/70...

"We believe these data thus demonstrate unambiguously that carboxyl groups are exposed at the ends of nanotube tips, and that these groups can be covalently modified to produce probes with very distinct chemical functionalities." http://www.nature.com/nature/j...

"We believe that the material which gives the X-ray diagrams is the salt, not the free acid." http://www.nature.com/physics/...

I really like that last one. Watson and Crick weren't scientists when they had that paper published?

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Zalbik]

At what point do statements become so ridiculous that they should be ridiculed rather than people wasting time trying to refute them

You shouldn't be trying to refute them. You should be presenting arguments for the fence-sitters that read the post who might be swayed by your argument.

Yes, there is a set of people who will never be convinced no matter how persuasive your argument is. A much larger group of people sit somewhere towards the middle who very well may be persuaded ever so slightly by a well reasoned and well presented argument.

Unfortunately, when you degrade the discussion to mindless name-calling, that can also persuades people that your you have no valid argument to make.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Anonymous Coward]

So now you move from ad hominem attacks to conflation, associating rejection of evolution with flat earth and alien abductions.

Actually - yes. Although conflation only in the sense of grouping rejection of evolution, believe in a flat earth or alien abduction in the same category of 'stuff that is too ridiculous to take seriously', I did not conflate the groups of people or the beliefs themselves, as you seem to imply. Although now that you brought it up, I would be quite surprised if there was not a small, but statistical non-random overlap between people who believe in alien abductions and those who claim evolution is not scientific fact.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Eh, birch trees come in several colours including white and grey. Betula populifolia is the grey birch.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Zalbik]

It's the primary technique that teachers are encouraged to use (again, in Canada).

Yes, and IMHO, it's been working terribly. Teachers don't understand the process, children get confused as to expectations and the "answers" are typically only vague representations of the actual knowledge that is supposed to be communicated.

I agree that inquiry based learning should be included as part of the curriculum, but a heck of a lot of learning should also be done using traditional methods. Little Johnny doesn't really need to know that these are the 6 different ways we can visualize the problem of 8 groups of 4 items. He really just needs to know that 8x4=32.

Specifically in math, we've been seeing very bad results due to inquiry-based learning, and it's starting to make parents fed up

Re:The Dark Age returns

[tmosley]

I guess you just ignore the ones you don't like, like the part about how the laws of the Old Testament are still in force. You know, where (most) of the crazy shit is.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Mister Transistor]

You've discovered the secret agenda!

Science would get no where if the process were to disprove all the arguments against a hypothesis.

The idea is to mire the progress of science by keeping the scientists busy disproving all the whackjob nutter "theories" that eventually go nowhere until the rapture occurs.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Jawnn]

Attacking his every statement with an ad hominem only hurts your argument.

If I observe that you seem to not understand the definition of ad hominem, I am not engaging in an ad hominem attack. Likewise, if I observe that a particular observation is "daft", it is the observation I've addressed, not the observer.
You are an idiot, and your mother dresses you funny. There. Now that was an ad hominem attack.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Jawnn]

Faith, the belief in things not provable, is extremely powerful and it doesn't help one bit when science relies on it for some of their biggest theories, such as string theory and a few others.

You were doing fine up until the point where you equated religious faith with scientific hypothesis. The two are alike in only the most superficial way. They are unalike in the most important ways. Only a fool would fail (or refuse) to note such distinctions.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[infosinger]

The key thing to remember is in science we build a model based on the evidence. The model does NOT become the actual thing it is modeling, but hopefully as time goes on it does converge. There have been many cases in history when the model was nice, but ultimately wrong in all conditions. Quantum mechanics is an excellent example of showing that newtonian mechanics model was incomplete and was in fact quite earth-shaking when it became accepted. Neither, however, are still 100% accurate, but they make pretty good models.

The big error is when we think the model is the same as the thing it models. Once this is the case, all meaningful discussions are shutdown. The earth is flat model was quite good and considered fact for many years until new evidence broke that model.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Kamots]

No, plenty of people believe in a supreme being without seeing evidence anywhere, much less everywhere.

You're describing gnostic theists and ignoring the whole set of agnostic theists. In my experience most of the religious people I've met that I consider "good" representatives of their faith fall into this latter camp while the gnostic theists are usually the fundamentalist nutjobs.

Personally the foundation of my faith is my agnosticism. Makes for quite the fun conversation with the fundies here in the south... ;)

That said, I agree with you that gnostic theists are delusional and see evidence where there is none :P

Re:The Dark Age returns

[jayp00001]

to be clear that's natural selection - not evolution. Evolution is that over time the fruitfly population will miraculously develop brand new functionality.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[jeff4747]

You shouldn't be trying to refute them. You should be presenting arguments for the fence-sitters that read the post who might be swayed by your argument.

Do you say the same about people who claim the government has actually been taken over by lizard-like aliens?
How about the people who claim blacks are inferior to whites? Or that women can't do math?

Sometimes, a position is so laughable it does not deserve to be treated with respect.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[jeff4747]

"Believe" does not have a single definition. You are claiming one while searching for another.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[earthforce_1]

> Look at astrophysics. There's enough of it that's just untestable speculation passed off as fact. The Big Bang Theory is a superb example of this. It's treated as absolute and indisputable fact, yet it was never (and likely never will be) directly observed.

We can observe the red shift and 3K background radiation which is exactly what was predicted by the big bang theory.

It's like hearing a shot and finding a suspect holding a smoking pistol, standing over a corpse with a fresh bullet wound with a perfect ballistics match to the weapon he was holding, yet acquitting him because nobody actually saw him pull the trigger. I hope you never, ever serve on a jury.

If you think that example is ridiculous, the evidence for evolution is far more overwhelming. If you want to claim the earth is actually 6000 years old, you not only ignore overwhelming evidence from biology, you must refute geology, physics, and astronomy as well. We shouldn't even be able to see most of our own galaxy.

As for the story of an 800 year old Noah collecting every species of life on earth to put on his boat, even Santa Claus going down a billion chimneys a night is highly plausible by comparison.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[david_thornley]

This is not a good picture of all Christians. For example, the official position of the Catholic Church is that evolution by natural selection happened, and there are plenty of devout Catholics. There have been, and are, lots of Christian scientists (lowercase "s" is important here).

Some (I don't know how many) Christians claim to perceive God directly. Some people have studied this, but it is impossible to tell whether this is an actual perception or an artifact of evolution. These people have evidence of God, and telling them to disbelieve their own perceptions is going to accomplish nothing - not without actual evidence, which nobody has. In my experience, these people tend to be very reasonable, since they are confident in their faith and interested in learning more about the Universe that God has created.

Some are Christians out of fear or conditioning, and these are the ones I least like dealing with. They often tend to be ones like you describe. My take is that lots of these people don't really believe, but think they have to, and put up some serious cognitive dissonance and hostility when their "faith" is threatened. I suspect that, in lots of other cultures, most people like them would just cease to be Christian, which would do everybody a favor.

Some churches are very understanding of people who lose their faith, and hope and pray that the person regains it. Many churches don't want to make you believe in something against your own thoughts. There's long tradition of disbelieving in God and still being faithful, or becoming faithful again. IIRC, C.S. Lewis wrote about it, I think somewhere in the Screwtape Letters, but I'm not sure.

BTW, it's quite possible that belonging to a particular church does help you and Bobby, since some congregations form into good support groups.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[earthforce_1]

Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. - Frater Ravus
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. -Ben Franklin
Faith means not wanting to know what is true. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Faith is believing what you know ain't so. - Mark Twain

Re:The Dark Age returns

[fermion]

This is the problem with education based on trivia. Religion is a set of fixed facts based on nothing but information inspired by the almighty, but at the end of the day is just the ramblings of sinners.

Science, if taught correctly, does not focus on the trivia. It focuses on the process, which sometimes promotes nonsense, like the Aether, but always provides a deeper understanding of the almighty by objectively probing the creation for clues about the nature of the deity, if any.

So no, science is not religion because science does not promote 'facts' as infallible or invariant.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[david_thornley]

Scientists believe in certain things, and if they didn't believe in those things they couldn't be scientists.

They believe that they perceive the real world, and that they are not dreaming or mind-controlled or in a "Total Recall" situation. They believe that the Universe as a whole makes some sort of sense, however counter-intuitive. They believe that the laws of Nature don't arbitrarily change (although they realize that they don't really know the actual laws).

Re:The Dark Age returns

[cas2000]

> You are an idiot, and your mother dresses you funny. There.
> Now that was an ad hominem attack.

not quite. you forgot to say "and because of those things, your argument is wrong"

without that, it's just a personal attack (or it could just be an observation of fact). an ad-hominem argument is when you use personal attacks or observations about irrelevant personal details to try to discredit an argument.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[cas2000]

uh, no. the point of evolution is that it's not miraculous.

evolutionary changes occur as a species adapts to its environment, either because the environment has changed or simply because the species is becoming better adapted to an unchanged environment.

if a random variation (as occurs all the time due to sexual reproduction and mixing of genes) or even a mutation (e.g. due to radiation or exposure to mutagenic chemicals - but note that most such mutations are fatal, not beneficial) provides a greater chance of surviving and reproducing then that trait will, over time, become more common in the population. and, at the same time, if a trait reduces an individuals chance of surviving and reproducing then that trait will gradually disappear from the population.

evolution is the result. natural selection is the mechanism.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[tmosley]

Like most of the people of my generation, I was born into religion (Christian-Southern Baptist, if you must know). However, with the vast sums of knowledge which became available with the information revolution, I quickly learned that the writings in the Bronze Age book were, well, just awful, and completely against the morality I had been raised with. Of course, my family, being Americans, never questioned the fact that our religion was completely at odds with the way we acted. Only in my later years have I come to understand that they didn't REALLY believe.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd go further; the problem with creationism isn't that it's religion, it's that it's bad religion.

The Catholic church, and most other Christian denominations that have the slightest pretensions to intellectual rigour, rejected a literalist interpretation of Genesis centuries ago - long before Darwin was even born.

Darwin himself trained as a chaplain. One of the questions that drove him away from his childhood faith was: "why would a loving and merciful god deliberately create so much pain and suffering? - like a wasp that lays its eggs in a caterpillar, so that they hatch and the maggots eat the flesh of the host while it's still alive?" Ask that of a modern creationist and watch them squirm. (And if their answer amounts to "caterpillars don't count", then you can bring up analogous conditions that affect humans, like elephantiasis.)

Re:The Dark Age returns

[silentcoder]

As a follower of Odin and worshipper of Thor I demand that science class teach the theory that Mjolnir causes thunder.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[tehcyder]

Attacking his every statement with an ad hominem only hurts your argument.

When someone says a series of incredibly stupid things, it's perfectly legitimate to point out their incredible stupidity.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[tehcyder]

Yes, there is a set of people who will never be convinced no matter how persuasive your argument is. A much larger group of people sit somewhere towards the middle who very well may be persuaded ever so slightly by a well reasoned and well presented argument.

Anyone who thinks (like the OP) that the Big Bang theory is rubbish because it was never directly observed is beyond rational debate.

You're at "electricity doesn't exist because I can't see it" levels of stupidity here.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[tehcyder]

So now you move from ad hominem attacks to conflation, associating rejection of evolution with flat earth and alien abductions.

You're right, that's a bit hard on the flat earth and alien abduction guys.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[tehcyder]

That's cute, but you do realize that Catholicism is perfectly okay with Evolution as valid science, right?

The joke is against believing in God, not evolution. Clue: the guy meeting the pope is an atheist, not an evolutionary biologist.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[dave420]

It's happened in lots of species. It's called industrial melanism

Re:The Dark Age returns

[dave420]

Learning is hard! Let's just guess how the world works. I see you've already started.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[dave420]

That is explained in great depth every single time adjustments are made. Their methodology for adjusting is published for peer review, also, meaning their entire work can be torn to shreds if mistakes were made. You not knowing why the adjustments were made - and refusing to find out - does not allow you to call it all nonsense. Data sets are frequently adjusted, sometimes many times a year, if the understanding of shortcomings of the data collection methodology is improved. You not understanding it doesn't turn good science into bad science.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[dave420]

You might want to brush up on the scientific method before you start calling it nonsense, for all to see, as if you are proud of your rampant ignorance.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[dave420]

Of course they believe things, but their belief is based on evidence, and not faith. That is the difference. Scientists base their beliefs on the measurable and the likely.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[niftymitch]

The problem is that schools don't teach science. .....

I recall my HS teacher teaching us about the "hollow earth" theory.
He "taught" a longish list that included accepted and OMG foolish
old theories. He did not take sides to the point that I at the time
I wondered how the heck the hollow earth thing worked. Raquel Welch
sort of made me not care if it was real for a couple hours...

Ultimately he had us looking at the list and thinking about it
critically. Some were so silly as to be easy to dismiss but
he had us dismiss them.

Yes the notion of critical thinking was rather soft but he had
us do it.

The reality is science if full of historic ideas that have mostly
been replaced with new and improved ideas. The puffery
of some science guys on TV belies the reality that we only
think we know something that is true, today.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[shutdown -p now]

That's exactly why Muslims like to liberally append "Insha'Allah" to statements about the future, and "Alhamdulillah" to statements about the past.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[dywolf]

was your thermometer in the sun or shade?
top of a hill or bottom of a valley?
near a reflective surface or body of water?
at what elevation?
is in consistently windy?
was it abnormally NOT windy that day?

seriously, this is explained every time it comes up.
your ignorant inability to comprehend it does not disprove it.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[dywolf]

You really think they get to look at it once, correct it once, and then say "ok, done, we never need to adjust it again, we'll never ever learn about some new factor not yet accounted for, or a better way to account for it" ??

Idiot.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[jandersen]

That's cute, but you do realize that Catholicism is perfectly okay with Evolution as valid science, right?

Of course - I just thought it was an apt comment on religious blindness to science in general. The Catholic church has not always been as enlightened, and unfortunately the attitude of many religions, Christians not least, is that religion or 'faith, as they call it, takes precedence over facts.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[jwhitener]

They "proclaim truths" (without actually going to the trouble of step-by-step proving every single one),

Your high school sucked or mine was excellent then, because we went through the proof behind "truths" all the time. Fruit fly experiments showing natural selection and evolution right before our eyes, deriving equations in physics just like the original discoverers derived them (from things like physical measurements, etc..).

I have no idea if my school is the exception or the rule though.

Re:The Dark Age returns

[jwhitener]

Except isn't even string theory based on what came out of interesting work in math? It may not be testable, but it was built up from some mathematical foundations, correct? I assume X,Y,Z about the universe, and then work out some math, and the math leads me to a state of matter that behaves like strings, etc..

Religious faith in "B" has no logical underpinnings. There isn't a series of logical arguments, that, assuming "Y", leads you to believing in "B". You just believe or don't believe. That seems rather different than string theory...

Re:The Dark Age returns

[alexgieg]

I have no idea if my school is the exception or the rule though.

It is. You were lucky. :-)

Friday already?

[DoofusOfDeath]

I thought Dice saved the flame-baiting articles for Fridays.

You bet it won't

[Psychotria]

'I can assure you this will not happen again.'

Intelligent Design has failed once, and so has Evolution. Of course it won't happen again. The principal who said that may be the only sane person in the universe. We all know that both ID and Evolution are flawed and only theories; they're not law. The obvious and only correct answer is that it (it? what is it?) is a combination of both theories. And I can assure you that this will not happen again -- it was a disaster.

Re:You bet it won't

[Barsteward]

"The obvious and only correct answer is that it (it? what is it?) is a combination of both theories. " how on earth did you come to that conclusion? ID is a religious argument, not science.

Re:You bet it won't

[msauve]

Well, there's the fact of evolution, which is that it does occur. We've observed it.

But, there's also the theory of evolution, which tries to determine the evolutionary path taken to get to present lifeforms.

So, there is a large part of "evolution" which shouldn't be presented as fact, or you end up with another Piltdown Man.

Re:You bet it won't

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you couldn't.

Re:You bet it won't

[Sique]

I wonder where the flaws of Evolution are.

And please, just because someone used the theory of Evolution to explain something, and then the explanation proved to be wrong doesn't mean that there was a flaw in the theory of Evolution. It's also not a flaw in the theory of Whole Numbers if you find a calculation error in your balance sheet. Yes, biologists are people, and they make mistakes, and sometimes someone comes up with some "because Evolution!"-argument, which later proves to be inconsistent with newer findings.

So again: Which are the flaws in the theory of Evolution, that are inherently a part of the theory itself?

Re:You bet it won't

[dave420]

Claiming something is not the same as having evidence of something. There are masses of evidence in support of the theory of evolution, and absolutely none in support of ID.

Re:You bet it won't

[Jason Levine]

Actually, proponents of ID don't tend to say "Anything that evolution doesn't cover was God." Instead, they say "All that evidence you claim to have for evolution? It's bunk. Throw it all out because obviously everything was too complicated to 'evolve' so God must have done it." In addition, they envision evolution as involving parts of the final structure appearing for no good reason instead of a "versioning system."

This is why they will frequently use the eye as a "counter-evolution" example. Clearly, the eye is complex so it must have just been designed. You wouldn't have a pupil just appear on a creature for no reason, right? And what's the chance that a no-eyed creature would suddenly have a baby with eyes? Zero! So God did it! (For clarification, this is their argument, not mine.)

Of course, the answer to this is that the eye is complex because it evolved the complexity over millions of years. It began as light-sensitive spots. Creatures who could sense light had a survival advantage so they had more offspring. The "light spots" got more and more complex - with each boost in light sensing meaning more chance of offspring and thus more chance of passing on the "light spot" genes. Over the generations, the light spot turned into a proto-eye and finally an eye. It didn't just pop into existence fully formed one day

Re:You bet it won't

[Anonymous Coward]

You could say that there's just about the same amount of evidence for both.

You could say you're the Emperor of France, Conqueror of the Eastern Hordes, Terror of the High Seas and the Proud Owner of an AMC Gremlin, so what's your point?

You can say a lot of things.

Re:You bet it won't

[turbidostato]

"So, there is a large part of "evolution" which shouldn't be presented as fact, or you end up with another Piltdown Man."

You know it is *because* of our theory of evolution along with our scientific method that we know the Piltdown Man is a fraud, don't you?

You know that, on the other hand, if we had gone with the standard religious method of "someone of value told us so" the Piltdown Man would still be taken for true, don't you?

Re:You bet it won't

[silentcoder]

Oh yes he could. I judge him fully capable of saying that. In fact, his post is strong evidence that he "could" do it.
It would be bullshit, but I doubt he would let that stop him.

Re:You bet it won't

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, proponents of ID don't tend to say "Anything that evolution doesn't cover was God." Instead, they say "All that evidence you claim to have for evolution? It's bunk. Throw it all out because obviously everything was too complicated to 'evolve' so God must have done it." In addition, they envision evolution as involving parts of the final structure appearing for no good reason instead of a "versioning system."

This is why they will frequently use the eye as a "counter-evolution" example. Clearly, the eye is complex so it must have just been designed. You wouldn't have a pupil just appear on a creature for no reason, right? And what's the chance that a no-eyed creature would suddenly have a baby with eyes? Zero! So God did it! (For clarification, this is their argument, not mine.)

Of course, the answer to this is that the eye is complex because it evolved the complexity over millions of years. It began as light-sensitive spots. Creatures who could sense light had a survival advantage so they had more offspring. The "light spots" got more and more complex - with each boost in light sensing meaning more chance of offspring and thus more chance of passing on the "light spot" genes. Over the generations, the light spot turned into a proto-eye and finally an eye. It didn't just pop into existence fully formed one day

you mention versioning systems and pupils. I noticed the other day how my cat's pupil looks exactly like that of an alligator, yet evolutionarily a cat is much closer to being human than an alligator. Cats are nocturnal and have an advantage of being able to see in extremely low light levels. They give up some measure of color perception by having a pupil that is basically a slit instead of a round hole. Alligators operate in the dark too so that type of eye seems to have found another evolutionary niche. You can show by looking at the DNA of two different animals, how long ago they diverged from each other, common ancestor-wise. Cats have been on Earth much longer than humans, and Alligators as reptiles, an order of magnitude longer than that. (Humans and cats are warm blooded and reptiles are cold blooded, This shows that cats and humans were more successful lifeforms than cold blooded animals in the colder environment that happened after the asteroid impact that killed off the dinosaurs, which were the height of cold blooded animals in terms of evolution and were brought down by climactic change of the environment from a warm to colder average temperature.)

I point this out to make this point, that you can tell that humans are a recent off-shoot of primates due to tell-tale mutations that have taken hold in higher primates that haven't happened in the rest of the animal kingdom. Human beings and higher primates have lost the ability to manufacture vitamin C and it is therefore an essential nutrient. (the only way to get it is from the diet.) Cats have no need of vitamin C in their diet at all. (Ever seen a cat with scurvy? It never happens.) Cats eat meat and no fruit. This is not speculation, it can be proven by looking at the diet and by looking at the DNA of humans, cats and primates. One of these things is not like the other.

Another thing that irritates me on a subtle level, and it is something that intelligent design supporters do as well as some scientifically minded individuals who should know better, is to look at an evolutionary change and then confuse cause and effect by saying something like "This evolved in order to solve the problem of X" when evolutionary changes happen through DNA transcription errors and are happening all the time. Vary rarely, this error results in a trait that is a survival advantage or something that makes mating and reproduction more likely. Evolution does not happen as a means to an end, but rather a filter through which innumerable random things that pass through only do so because they did not impact survival and reproduction in a negative way. This is probably why I love the comment

Re:You bet it won't

[gl4ss]

i don't think you quite understand what evidence means.

and the creationism theory they teach isn't just for filling the gaps, it's in contradiction.

Re:You bet it won't

[Bing Tsher E]

You could say you're the Emperor of France, Conqueror of the Eastern Hordes, Terror of the High Seas and the Proud Owner of an AMC Gremlin, so what's your point?

He really likes AMC Gremlins. Duh.

Re:You bet it won't

[mark-t]

Facts exist... plenty of them, for that matter. For example, it is a fact that pigs do not possess the ability to fly, insomuch as flying is considered an act of volition that is considered distinct from being launched from a stationary position relative to the ground as a projectile, or else simply "falling".

Re:You bet it won't

[sumdumass]

ID is not creationism. It uses creationism but mixes it with the known evolution. My point stands as all evidence for evolution is in intelligent design - they just skip the logical conclusions and say God did it. Of course that is over simplified but sums it up in a nutshell.

Re:You bet it won't

[david_thornley]

The proponents you describe apparently don't believe that God could do something they couldn't easily understand, which strikes me as an extremely odd view in an actual believer.

Re:You bet it won't

[dave420]

Very well put - I used the word "evidence" as meaning something which stands up to rigour, not necessarily just as a thing someone thinks means something. I should have been more precise. Thanks for the correction!

Re:You bet it won't

[dave420]

Then there is the Pallas cat which has round pupils, and the Fox which (while a canid) has cat-like pupils. Interesting stuff :)

Re:You bet it won't

[dave420]

The ID movement was born out of the creationist movement. The name ID was chosen because it sounds science-y. The first ID literature was creationist literature with a global search-and-replace.

Re:You bet it won't

[tehcyder]

Facts exist... plenty of them, for that matter. For example, it is a fact that pigs do not possess the ability to fly, insomuch as flying is considered an act of volition that is considered distinct from being launched from a stationary position relative to the ground as a projectile, or else simply "falling".

Strictly speaking, it is a fact that no pigs so far discovered possess the ability to fly. It's extraordinarily unlikely there's some natural pig-bird cross breed living deep in the amazon rain forest, but who knows?

Re:You bet it won't

[shutdown -p now]

This shows that cats and humans were more successful lifeforms than cold blooded animals in the colder environment that happened after the asteroid impact that killed off the dinosaurs, which were the height of cold blooded animals in terms of evolution and were brought down by climactic change of the environment from a warm to colder average temperature.)

I don't think this follows from your exact example, because crocodiles didn't really change all that much since before the K-T extinction - and are thriving in the current environment just the same. So I wouldn't say that cats, for example, are "more successful". Cats just happened to fill the new niches that appeared due to climate change, which crocs couldn't do... but the niche that they occupied heretofore was still there, and they were (and are) still superbly adapted to it. This can be trivially demonstrated by throwing a cat in a gator-infested swamp and observing the outcome :)

Re:You bet it won't

[sumdumass]

Still doesn't alter the point. ID accepts every piece of empirical evidence for evolution and substitutes god did it where science inserts conclusions and conjecture from the evidence.

Live by the sword, die by the sword

[Anonymous Coward]

More people need to be treated according to their beliefs, or not treated.

I wonder...

[wbr1]

Can we also put this in the curriculum as possibly fact: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programme...

or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Just as real. Perhaps we should agitate for it and show these zealots who cry for fairness what they are really about.

Jewish Myth as fact.

[Anonymous Coward]

... that surveys have found that over 10 percent of the science teachers in the US teach creationism as a valid scientific perspective.

Let me guess, they are mostly in REDneck states.

We have a lot of problems in this country and teaching Stone Age Jewish myth as science is just going to make things worse down the road.

I miss the 1960s and the whole race to the Moon. Science was cool - not just a means to a middle class living.

Re:Jewish Myth as fact.

[soccerisgod]

Jewish myth? No. The kind of Creationism we're facing here ("young earth creationism") is the brain child of some select American Christians. Most Jewish religious leaders have understood and accepted the validity of evolution as early as the 19th century.

Re:Jewish Myth as fact.

[hey!]

Creationism is a pseudoscience invented by modern Christians, true. But that doesn't mean Genesis isn't a Jewish myth. Myths aren't intended to be science, or even history. They're intended to resonate emotionally.

This is what I think the Garden of Eden story is about: I think it's saying that the kind of "paradise" where you sit around all day without working or suffering is incompatible with human freedom. The experience (aka "knowledge") of both good and evil is a consequence of human choice. We might be better off in some ways living in a kind of Cosmic kennel, but we wouldn't have any of the richness and meaning of human life without the experience of good and evil.

Now it so happens that in the Middle Ages certain Christians re-created this naive picture of paradise. They pictured heaven as a choir in which the faithful gathered around God in concentric circles and sang His praises forever and ever. But what if one day you felt like doing something different? If being fed and amused perpetually is your idea of paradise, then you naturally won't be open to some implications of the Eden story.

The Garden of Eden story turns out to be very interesting as a myth. It's just not very interesting as science.

Re:Jewish Myth as fact.

[tehcyder]

This is what I think the Garden of Eden story is about: I think it's saying that the kind of "paradise" where you sit around all day without working or suffering is incompatible with human freedom. The experience (aka "knowledge") of both good and evil is a consequence of human choice. We might be better off in some ways living in a kind of Cosmic kennel, but we wouldn't have any of the richness and meaning of human life without the experience of good and evil.

It also conveniently answers the "if God is so good and all-powerful, why is there evil/pointless pain in the world" argument people not unsurprisingly use when their child dies of brain cancer.

Yes indeed, without your child dying in agony you wouldn't appreciate the good things in life so much. It's just odd that everyone isn't regularly stricken down by God as a way to help them enjoy life, and downright perverse when mere human beings try to alleviate suffering by using pain killers and other medicine.

Re:Jewish Myth as fact.

[shutdown -p now]

Or perhaps the Garden of Eden story is, in fact, about evolution. Or rather, specifically, about that particular step in it that made some primate species somewhere from animals (who do not "know good and evil") into people (who do).

(BTW, I'm not saying that this is necessary something that actually happened - I don't believe there's a hard line between the two concepts, and we know from ethology that animals have some ethical concepts - we just choose to call them "instincts". But many people do believe there's a difference, and such a myth is one way to allegorically represent it.)

Re:Jewish Myth as fact.

[porjo]

Creationism is a pseudoscience invented by modern Christians

'Creationism', the label, was invented by others and applied to the group of people who believe that Genesis is a historical account and, more specifically, the 6 days of creation should be understaood as literal 24hr days. There is nothing 'modern' about that belief. Many great scientists of the past took a literal interpretation of Genesis: Pasteur, Newton, Kepler, Faraday - the list goes on...

Doonesbury

[fremsley471]

Not so crazy about Trudeau after his PEN remarks, but this nails it:
http://stupidevilbastard.com/2006/01/doonesbury_takes_on_creationism/

Re:Doonesbury

[drinkypoo]

Not so crazy about Trudeau after his PEN remarks

Penalty? Peruvian Nuevo Sol? Penitentiary? Public Education Network? Polyethylene Naphthalate? Partly chopped-off penis? What the fuck is PEN?

Re:Doonesbury

[Zero__Kelvin]

... really! I'm with you! ... and while we're at it, could someone please tell us what this Google thing everyone keeps alluding to is??!!!!

Re:Doonesbury

[drinkypoo]

... really! I'm with you! ... and while we're at it, could someone please tell us what this Google thing everyone keeps alluding to is??!!!!

Try googling for "PEN" and see what you get back, asshole. It's a bunch of pens (shock amazement) and some poorly-designed literature webpage. Add in "Doonesbury" and you get some "pen and ink" hits.

Re:Doonesbury

[drinkypoo]

I Googled "Garry Trudeau PEN comments" and this is the first fucking result :

Hey, cowardly idiot: Google doesn't show the same results to everyone.

Re:Doonesbury

[dave420]

Then give people links or explain things more clearly :) Relying on something you yourself know to be unreliable, then getting upset when it is unreiable, seems rather strange to me :)

Re:Doonesbury

[drinkypoo]

Then give people links or explain things more clearly

When there is no or little ambiguity, then referring people to google makes sense. When I realize that information will be hard to track down, I make a link.

Re:Doonesbury

[Zero__Kelvin]

Congratulations on your announcement of your complete incompetence to the word. Hmmm ... I wonder what I should google for if I want to know about Trudeau's PEN Remarks? So many decisions ... Oh wait! Here's a crazy thing to try!

Face it America ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have an epidemic of stupidity.

Congratulations, the discourse in your country is being controlled by a bunch of drooling idiots who have decided that no matter the physical evidence, they will simply go "la la la" and continue to say "teh god did it, thank you baby jeezuz".

So you know all those ignorant morons in the Middle East? The ones who want to bring back stoning and women being property? The ones who are such a threat to your freedoms?

Well, those people are your future.

The screeching mob of uneducated Christians in America is no better than the screeching hordes of uneducated Muslims everywhere else in the world.

Congratulations, you have taken a nation at the peak of knowledge and discovery, and allowed yourselves to be taken over by idiots who wish to live in the stone ages and deny the facts of the world around them.

America is a country in decline. A failed empire. Only you're too stupid to know that your future is bleak as long as you're going to have children who have been told that fairy tales are as credible as science.

So why don't you assholes stay in your own country, stop mucking around in world affairs, and shut the fuck up and leave the rest of the world in peace from your stupidity and bullshit?

Fucking nation of morons.

Re:Face it America ...

[drakaan]

Entertaining, but incorrect.

There is a vocal minority of people with faith-based beliefs that override reasoned thought. They are not in charge. There are a few elected politicians who are morons, and a larger swath of electorate who share those beliefs, but that's still a minority of the population. The USA has more than 50 states, territories, and outlying areas, each with their own local government structure.

In Louisiana, a similar issue has been dealt with in the courts previously and the federal judiciary seems to have been reasonable enough in deciding that the law is unconstitutional.

This newer law seems to have the same goal as the 1981 law, and will likely face similar challenges. The nation is not made up of morons. It actively recognizes and points them out, which sometimes makes it appear that way, though.

Re:Face it America ...

[dave420]

Great Britain != Britain. Clearly your education wasn't taken too seriously by anyone.

Re:Face it America ...

[drakaan]

...Those of you who give +Points to people like drakaan, I have to ask, why do you do it? Is it because your opinion agrees with his on evolution? I don't care about that. Just keep in mind that cheerleading the Federal Courts running roughshod over Christian ideas may seem cool right now. But if they were to succeed in totally suppressing religious thought and freedoms, you won't have any freedoms left either. At that point, they will also take away your marijuana rights and all those other things you think are important. At that point, it will be impossible to give + points to anyone not "approved".

I actually didn't give an opinion on evolution. I did make some comments about the USA not being populated by morons, and I pointed out that a previous law mandating that public schools teach Evolution was ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts, as it runs afoul of the First Amendment's establishment clause.

A subset of Christians expressing their beliefs in a Creator being responsible for designing life (as an alternative to the theory of evolution) by way of formal instruction in federally-funded schools is at odds with the protections the First Amendment reserves for the People.

If a private school (there are many of them...my neighbor's son goes to a pretty exclusive Catholic one with ties to Notre Dame) wants to teach ID to students, then there's no problem. The problem only exists when we're talking about public education.

The federal courts aren't running roughshod over Christian ideas, in this case. One could argue that there are instances, specifically with regards to displaying religious symbols in public spaces, where they have done so, but this is not one of those cases. You are not being prohibited from expressing your religious beliefs by our government, and if you were, I'd fight like hell to prevent it, just as I would if any of your other constitutional rights were being infringed upon.

You *are* being prevented from using a government institution to spread your ideas, which is as it should be for any religion.

Re:Face it America ...

[shutdown -p now]

There is a vocal minority of people

Are you sure?

They are not in charge.

Are you sure?

Re:Face it America ...

[drakaan]

As for question 1, yes. I'm reasonably sure that 42% is a minority, and I'm skeptical of that number being accurate. The sample size was 1028 people in all 50 states and the stated margin of error is +/- 4%. I do admit that I'm shocked that the number has remained at 40-47% since the question was first asked in 1987, especially with news of fewer and fewer people identifying as religious.

As for question 2, there's a reason that we aren't seeing legislators bring forth new laws regarding religion (though I agree that there have been some very disturbing statements by some officials in key positions), and that is because they serve at the will of the People, a majority of whom would not stand for it. Despite punditry to the contrary, *we* (well, those of us who vote, call, email, and protest) are in charge. So, yes, again, I'm pretty sure.

Re:Face it America ...

[shutdown -p now]

As for question 1, yes. I'm reasonably sure that 42% is a minority

This is 42% that admits to being a Young Earth Creationist, which is the extreme far end of "people with faith-based beliefs that override reasoned thought". This doesn't include people who don't believe in evolution but otherwise accept old Earth, and we didn't even get started on other issues such as climate change, where the picture is even more bleak. But to me, the fact that 42% (or even 30%) believe that Earth is 10,000 years old is already a major a catastrophe from an educational perspective, given that we're talking about a First World nation with mandatory education.

As for question 2, there's a reason that we aren't seeing legislators bring forth new laws regarding religion

Oh, they're bringing them all the time - just look at the regular bills related to abortion, for example. They don't get passed, yes, because there's presently a legislative deadlock in the Congress on anything even remotely touchy. If you look at state level, things are much worse in red states where such bills do regularly become laws. Again, abortion is the biggest item that is targeted there right now, but also climate change research, secular education, and anti-discrimination laws (under the guise of "religious freedom" laws).

That is because in many of the states, the majority does in fact stand for such laws (and even more extreme ones - right now it's largely the judiciary that keeps the excesses of state legislatures in check to some extent, by shooting them down as unconstitutional; and not the people through voting). And given that US is a federal republic with a strong degree of decentralization, what happens on state level is equally if not more important than federal level - to remind, the states are largely responsible for education, for example.

With respect to the majority of voters actually being able to affect policy, I will also remind you that given a district-based FPTP electoral system, the representation in Congress (or state equivalent) does not actually directly correspond to popular vote (e.g. given the current House, GOP has 57% of the seats while only securing 52% of popular vote). In fact, it is entirely possible to have the seat distribution be the opposite of popular vote, where the minority becomes the majority - the House elections in 2012 saw GOP take 48% of popular vote, but the majority of the seats.

And then there's gerrymandering. If you live in, say, Austin, and you're a liberal, how many congressmen are actually representing you and several hundred thousand people like you?

Re:Face it America ...

[drakaan]

...But to me, the fact that 42% (or even 30%) believe that Earth is 10,000 years old is already a major a catastrophe from an educational perspective, given that we're talking about a First World nation with mandatory education.

I'm not saying you're wrong to consider it a problem. That doesn't change the fact that it's a minority opinion, and that self-identified religious people are becoming rarer in the USA.

...Oh, they're bringing them all the time - just look at the regular bills related to abortion, for example...

Poor example, in my opinion. I think there's room there to see abortion at a certain gestational age as a human-rights issue, but I get what you're saying. The climate change issue is nonreligious.

Religious freedom laws (the right to refuse service to customers on the sole basis of their own personal beliefs) are something that's talked about, and that some more local governments have been trying to legislate, but without much success. It's also easy to see that such laws will face harsh criticism in federal court challenges to their constitutionality. Again, it's easy to point to the people doing outrageous things and scream about a problem, but don't mistake it for a country-wide one.

I'm sure you're aware of the many fine counter-arguments to the points you are attempting to make as to why the electoral college is bad. I'm not going to spend time listing them unless you really want me to, so I'll just say that there's plenty of disagreement there, and leave it at that. The populace is every bit as disinclined to vote as it ever has been (and the graph of voter participation is pretty flat across the past century), so we get who the most interested parties vote for, whether that's good or bad. That doesn't mean that legislators are running roughshod over the populace, it means that most of the populace can't be bothered to spend 10 minutes voting.

Well.

[Black Parrot]

Anything presented in PowerPoint is easy enough to ignore, dismiss, or sleep through.

Re:Well.

[turp182]

That's why it is the perfect delivery mechanism for people who don't think rationally (school boards, management, etc.)

Re:Well.

[tehcyder]

Anything presented in PowerPoint is easy enough to ignore, dismiss, or sleep through.

Is it specifically PowerPoint that you object to, or is it any form of slide show presentation?

Gasp!

[rmdingler]

Imagine the uproar that ensues when it is revealed a group of people predisposed to religious belief

are found to sponsoring that belief set for the education of their children.

Re:Gasp!

[PopeRatzo]

Imagine the uproar that ensues when it is revealed a group of people predisposed to religious belief
are found to sponsoring that belief set for the education of their children.

That's what they make parochial schools for. This was done in public schools, meaning people without those beliefs are also paying for it.

Re:Gasp!

[rmdingler]

parochial schools

Agreed, but these private schools are only available at a premium in many locales, placing them outside the budget of many poor Southern families, ironically where the Creationist belief set is most prevalent.

Look, this is not an argument for the presence of any god in the classroom. It just seems clear there are going to be pockets of the population in some school districts where belief in the almighty approaches 100%.

Unfortunate, yet not unexpected.

Re:Gasp!

[operagost]

To be fair, I am against a lot of things they do in public schools, yet I'm forced to pay property tax to support them. I don't seem to get an exemption, and no matter who I vote for in school board elections they all seem to do the same things.

Re:Gasp!

[PopeRatzo]

To be fair, I am against a lot of things they do in public schools, yet I'm forced to pay property tax to support them.

I'm curious. Are there parts of the public school curriculum to which you object? Or are the things you're against more part of the public school administration and management?

Re:Gasp!

[PopeRatzo]

Agreed, but these private schools are only available at a premium in many locales, placing them outside the budget of many poor Southern families, ironically where the Creationist belief set is most prevalent.

Then teach your kids creationism in church or at home.

It just seems clear there are going to be pockets of the population in some school districts where belief in the almighty approaches 100%.

That's fine, but what does it have to do with the science curriculum in public schools?

Re:Gasp!

[david_thornley]

Are any of those things you are against religious in nature? That's very important legally. Creationism is a religious belief, while evolution is the best scientific theory we've got on the subject, and extremely well-supported.

Re:Gasp!

[dave420]

And in lots of places 100% of the kids are in to soccer or some such pursuit - should the science lessons in those areas teach that the world is a soccer ball? Science lessons are for teaching science, not an audience-friendly bullshitting session designed to make people not realise they believe abject nonsense. They should teach this garbage in church.

Re:The people

[ledow]

There's a way to distinguish between forcing a personal view and allowing a personal view to be arrived at.

NOBODY is running into schools and telling kids there is no God and they must be taught that, and they must write that down in their books, and they must read only textbooks that say there is no God. Nobody. Not even in the science lessons.

But creationists are doing exactly that for their belief, and far outside the scope of religious studies (science is science, maths is maths, geography is geography, religious studies is where you study religions).

Atheists probably value personal choice more than ANY other group of people. Nobody says "You cannot teach that religion" except other religions. Atheists say "You can teach all religions - including atheism and agnosticism and pastafarianism - fairly, inside a religious studies class".

It's like saying that pacifists aren't choosing a side in the war and promoting their countries military. Of course they're not. But neither are FORCING you / your kids to be pacifists too.

Re:The people

[meglon]

No, it's called reality. People can be as stupid as they fucking want to be... the probem is when completely fucking stupid idiots come to think their ignorant as fuck opinion is the same as reality we have a problem. That is precisely where we are today, and this bullshit is only going to make it worse. These worthless fucks are making sure that their kids will NEVER be able to compete in their lives by keeping them stupider than fuck, and making sure that future generations here in the good old US of Stupidity continue to fall behind the rest of the world.

It's funny how some zealot religious fanatics want to destroy their kids lives, and the future of this country, then complain it's "their choice" to fuck everything up for everyone, but people are being mean to them BECAUSE they're stupid fucking idiots.

You need to quit projecting, pull your head out of ass, and try to make this world better for a change instead of promoting complete fucking stupidity.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science
>In science, a "fact" is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence.

There a repeatable careful observation for evolution. Evolution is a fact!

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[guruevi]

In the strict definition, it is a theory which means it's a "hypothesis supported by facts and evidence which leads us to conclude it's the best explanation for what we experience". We do see "speciation" occur in the lab, we see evolution occur even within our own species. The macro/micro evolution debate was invented by ID'ers to 'prove' evolution is false, there is no such thing as macro evolution (species do not jump up/down the evolutionary ladder), there is only small changes that eventually (measured in geological times) lead to different 'species'. But from a genetic viewpoint, all species are very similar and even some species we previously classified as separate species because of how they look are genetically identical (eg. dogs and wolves, certain birds, insects)

Re:The people

[Barsteward]

"Converting these kids isn't going to save the world." - might not save the world but it might save them

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[Rei]

That's awfully convenient given that the definition of "macrospeciation" is "speciation which occurs over timescales too long to observe directly". I could point to tons of observed examples of speciation but you'll simply reply that they're not "macrospeciation", no matter how radical they are, because they were observed, and thus not "macro". Major changes in physical structure (Shikano, et al. (1990)), changes in chromosome counts (tons), single cellular to multicellular changes (Boraas (1983)), radically different diets (tons), and on and on? Nah, not macrospeciation. Why? Because they've been observed, duh!

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[Ol Olsoc]

In the strict scientific definition, and since we have not seen speciation occur at a macro scale, but only interpret the data to believe that it is the case, it is correct to deny it the status of fact.

The old "directly testable" canard coupled wth the inability to comprehend time business.

Problem is, we can make tests. We can make tests in biology, We can make tests in geology and paleontology, we can make tests in physics. All of these support evolution, none disprove it. One test at any given time could completely disprove it, show it to be false.

But yes, you are correct in that there is no human who has been around to personally witness life since it's beginning.

But it's like saying that no murder can ever be solved unless there was an unimpeachable witness who personally witnessed the murder - no dna evidence would be allowed because it is from the evolution supporting field of biology, therefore suspect as "fact".

Of course it is the current consensus BELIEF of all scientists in the field that want to be taken seriously...

You need to replace "belief" with "confidence".

Because although the two processes have some similarity, they are completely different at the core. I have much confidence that the process of evolution and speciation is real. Given enough evidence, I will lower that confidence to the point I have no more confidence.

But belief needs no confidence, nor tests, nor experiments. In the field of religion, it means you just completely accept what you read.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[dave420]

So much fail. Speciation has been observed in the wild and in the lab. The only difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is time, and neither of those terms are used in biology as they mean nothing - the term is simply "evolution".

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[turbidostato]

Sorry but evolution is a fact. Is so much a fact that you can produce it on a petri plaque producing the exact results predicted by the synthetic evolution theory.

What it is a theory is the way evolution is produced and why it works, it is called the theory of "evolution by natural selection", or it's modern, refined version, "synthetic evolution theory" and it is the best theory we have.

You know, "theory" doesn't mean "well, I think this might work this way, more or less" but a corpus of scientific ideas that explain a portion of reality. Thus, E=m*c^2 is a fact; relativity is a theory.

Re:The people

[Jason Levine]

I'm not an Athiest (I'm Jewish), but even I don't want religion taught in schools. When people say "teach religion in schools" (outside of some comparative religion/philosophy class), what they really mean is "teach Christianity in schools." Try teaching Islam in a public school and you'll see all of those "we need to put religion back into public school" advocates go crazy.

I might be religious, but I try not to force my religion on others. I'm willing to discuss it with others if they ask questions, but I don't discuss it in a "my religion is so great, you need to convert now or else" manner. To me, religion is a personal matter and definitely not something for public schools to cover in a science class. You want to believe that the Earth was created 10,000 years ago when God sneezed it into his cosmic hanky? Go right ahead. You can even tell your kids that at home. Just don't try teaching MY kids that in public school because you can't deal with your kids learning about evolution.

Re:This is America!

[morgauxo]

Oh, yah. They really lose at the game of reproduction.

Re:Enemy of my enemy...is still my enemy

[oh_my_080980980]

So what you're sayings is you're a creationist. Nice....

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[Jason Levine]

In the strict definition, it is a theory which means it's a "hypothesis supported by facts and evidence which leads us to conclude it's the best explanation for what we experience"

As much of an opponent I was of the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate (I didn't see any point in Nye "debating" Ham and it just gave Ham publicity), there was one good exchange. They were both asked what it would take for them to change their opinions. For Nye to accept creationism or for Ham to accept evolution. Nye said that it would take proof that the things that science accepts as facts (e.g. atomic clocks can't be reset) aren't true. This would be extraordinary proof to be sure, but it would be evidence that science is wrong. Meanwhile, Ken Ham replied that nothing would change his mind. God himself could shout out "Hey Ken! Evolution is fact" and Ken would pound his Bible and declare evolution wrong.

I've spent time with creationists. They view science's changing theories as a weakness and religion's constant "God did it as explained in the Bible" as strength. In fact, it's the other way around. Science changes theories based on different evidence. It's willing to toss old, once beloved theories aside if the evidence comes in proving it wrong. You want to prove evolution wrong? Find a rabbit fossil from the Triassic. Creationism, on the other hand, is never willing to change*. They just march on in the same direction even if all signs point to that being the wrong direction.

* They are never willing to change, but over the years their interpretations of the Bible passages might change which changes their creationist theories. They will never admit this, though, and just insist that they've always believed this.

Already done that way

[dbIII]

presenting them the same raw data Darwin had collected

Already done that way - Galapagos finches

but for the vast majority of people science and religions will remain similar and roughly interchangeable

The general population are not as stupid as Hollywood suggests - people who cannot tell the difference have other things wrong with them as well. Now there are lay preachers who see science as their enemy in increasing the size of their flock (or franchise for the more cynical prosperity worship type) who will PRETEND that science is a rival religion - but once again, many things are wrong with that picture and not just one. If a God is so puny as to be threatened by Mendel (more pious than just about any evangelical) and Darwin then it's not much of a God is it? About 3/4 of the people that refuted the great flood theory of fossils were ordained and they put it down to learning more about God's creation instead of letting it shake their faith. Science plus Religion is like having a hat and a sock and they don't have to fight for space on the same foot or head.

Re:Already done that way

[dbIII]

I think you are very misguided about both science and religion and how they are very different things that do not intersect. It's only when religion expands into politics that it can come into conflict with things that impede it's expansion into politics.
Early in the 20th century many Churches were of the opinion that God created stuff and Darwin was just describing the ongoing process of how God was creating stuff. Then along came Christianity-Lite where for the sake of dumbing things down their God created everything and then went away and died or something, Creationism isn't just an insult to science, it's also apparently very bad theology.

Most jobs don't need advanced knowledge anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Currently, America has a glut of college graduates. More high school graduates, with only a mediocre understanding of science, is what the economy needs. It will help rebalance the workforce. So, Louisiana, please continue.

Re:Most jobs don't need advanced knowledge anyway

[Penguinisto]

Dunno who modded you up, but a fresh-out-of-apprenticeship welder, electrician, nurse, or HVAC worker will often make more money per annum than a college grad holding a BS. Many of the other construction trades are also paths towards decent pay if you're willing to put in the work and get the skills. If the kid is smart, he eventually parlays that vocational skill into his/her own business, or into management.

On the extreme end, I personally know of a few gents who specialize in repairing/maintaining certain mining equipment, have no college degree, but they make over 2x my salary (which is a bit over $120k), and they only put in roughly 3-6 months of work and travel each year.

Re:The people

[Shoten]

I'm not an Athiest (I'm Jewish), but even I don't want religion taught in schools. When people say "teach religion in schools" (outside of some comparative religion/philosophy class), what they really mean is "teach Christianity in schools." Try teaching Islam in a public school and you'll see all of those "we need to put religion back into public school" advocates go crazy.

I might be religious, but I try not to force my religion on others. I'm willing to discuss it with others if they ask questions, but I don't discuss it in a "my religion is so great, you need to convert now or else" manner. To me, religion is a personal matter and definitely not something for public schools to cover in a science class. You want to believe that the Earth was created 10,000 years ago when God sneezed it into his cosmic hanky? Go right ahead. You can even tell your kids that at home. Just don't try teaching MY kids that in public school because you can't deal with your kids learning about evolution.

If I had any mod points at the moment, I'd mod this up until we had to crane our necks looking upwards to be able to read it from underneath. Bravo, sir, bravo.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[silentcoder]

Does it count that domesticated sheep are no longer capable of interbreeding with wild sheep making them in the strictest sense of the word a new species: and that was definitely observed by humans. Lots of humans over a long time. But human observation nonetheless.

Re:Enemy of my enemy...is still my enemy

[Guy From V]

I'm more partial to Huehuecoyotl if I had to pin it down.

Drug-Resistant Virii, Lysol-resistant bacteria

[tekrat]

So, I believe all you have to do is ask an "intelligent design" person why God is creating Drug-resistant Virii, or creating bacteria that doesn't die when you hit it with lysol.

Just ask anyone who works in a hospital. Hospitals are LOSING a battle against infections, because the bugs are getting smarter and tougher versus our ability to kill them.

So; why is God doing that? He's going out of his way to do that, since obviously, it would be heresy to suggest that the bacteria is evolving, right??

Re:Drug-Resistant Virii, Lysol-resistant bacteria

[fluffernutter]

If you go down this path, the only conclusion that can be reached is that most deities just want us to die. Why are there diseases that kill newborn infants? Why would a god want a child to die after experiencing more of this world then a few breaths of air?

Re:Drug-Resistant Virii, Lysol-resistant bacteria

[Cro Magnon]

And it's not just microorganisms. I'm reasonably sure Pekinese and French poodles weren't around a couple million years ago.

Re:Drug-Resistant Virii, Lysol-resistant bacteria

[Anonymous Coward]

You morons and your made-up "virii" word...

Re:Drug-Resistant Virii, Lysol-resistant bacteria

[Zero__Kelvin]

"So, I believe all you have to do is ask an "intelligent design" person why God is creating Drug-resistant Virii, or creating bacteria that doesn't die when you hit it with lysol."

Seriousy? You are going to deny His existence, and then wonder why He is smiting you? (No. I don't think that way; you're forgetting that they do, it seems.)

Re:Drug-Resistant Virii, Lysol-resistant bacteria

[Ogive17]

Or ask why He saved Dick Chaney by killing someone else in order to harvest the organs but why He kills thousands of children with cancer every year.

I was debating with someone a few weeks ago. I ended the debate with "The Bible was written by man, it was translated by man, it has been copied by man, and it has been interpreted by man. How the hell can anyone believe it is the true word of God?"

Re:Drug-Resistant Virii, Lysol-resistant bacteria

[sudon't]

So, I believe all you have to do is ask an "intelligent design" person why God is creating drug-resistant [viruses]...

You obviously never attended Catholic school. It is to punish Man for his sins, and his arrogance. Also: mysterious ways. Next question?

Re:Drug-Resistant Virii, Lysol-resistant bacteria

[shutdown -p now]

Clearly, that is to punish us for our immorality. As you point out yourself, as time passes by, the viruses get tougher. At the same time, we keep legalizing sins and perversions such as sodomy and abortion. Indeed, if you plot one against the other, there's a clear correlation! ~

Re:Drug-Resistant Virii, Lysol-resistant bacteria

[porjo]

all you have to do is ask an "intelligent design" person why God is creating Drug-resistant Virii

Intelligent Design, the theory, says nothing about *who* the designer was/is, so the question doesn't make much sense in that context. If you're referring to Bible-believing Creationists more generally, then the answer would be 'God isn't creating Drug-resistant Virii'. The Bible says that a) God created (He doesn't continue to create) b) that is was perfect at the beginning c) corruption, decay, disease etc came after the fall of mankind. Also, I'm not sure that you'd find too many Creationists scientists who would deny that the 'bacteria is evolving'. In that specific sense, 'evolving' does not conflict with Creationism at all!

Re:Drug-Resistant Virii, Lysol-resistant bacteria

[jwhitener]

I think the ID people agree that a species can develop new traits over time. It is really hard to argue against high school fruit fly experiments:) What they don't believe is that new species can evolve from existing species.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[soccerisgod]

There are many scientific theories that have not be proven completely. You know what? It doesn't matter. This is not how science works. If we ever have a better theory, it will replace the old one. The good thing about scientific theories is that they can offer workable models that help to explain the world in very useful ways. You know, like Newton's laws. We know now that they are only valid under specific circumstances, and we have better and more complex theories now. But that doesn't mean the old ones were useless.

Your attempt to discredit Evolution by tagging it a theory is sad and only shows you have no idea how science actually works.

Return of the Luddites

[BoRegardless]

Trying to eliminate a set of knowledge backed up by proofs that has benefited mankind enormously under the guise of following a particular religion's ideas (not all religions mind you) is beyond just stupidity.

This sort of idea of one group trying to force all others into a false belief system is also what was behing the rise of "Kings" and "devine right" of Kings and tyrants.

Animal/plant breeding == evolution

[DutchUncle]

Any farmer or herder learns about breeding plants or animals: Encourage breeding of things with traits you select, discourage breeding of those without. Find instructions in Genesis 30, if you're religious. Thus, any conservative suggesting that evolution is counter to religion simply doesn't understand what he's talking about - and should be questioned about a lack of faith that God can rack up the molecules and do a near-"perfect break" rather than have to create creatures with design defects.

One might fruitfully discuss and debate sentience and self-awareness, and how humans seem to have made a quantum leap above other animals in that regard (though nature videos and pet lovers continually indicate more levels of intelligence in animals than previously thought). But that's still ongoing natural selection - SOME species was bound to make that leap, and kill off all of its competition, and since we're the ones who are left, it must have been us.

Re:Animal/plant breeding == evolution

[jwhitener]

The ID people agree that species can be bred to enhance new traits or develop new ones. They disagree that you can breed a new species. The whole notion is to make sure that humans are special and didn't evolve from "monkeys" as the ID people say.

Re:The people

[Anonymous Meoward]

Uh, from what exactly? The boogeyman under the bed?

This is exactly why we're raising our daughter without God, or other myths. We really don't need her to be crippled by fear of the unknown, let alone the imaginary. (We'll educate her on what others believe, but we refuse to hobble her.)

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[omnichad]

I agree - but that's because I don't think that the word "fact" should exist in a scientist dictionary. Theory is science's highest honor, not fact. It's the wrong mindset for expanding knowledge to have hard set rules. I feel like this hard clinging to the word fact is just a fight against the religious and not based on anything rational.

Just think about how much our idea of something as simple as light has changed in even the last 50 years.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[jandersen]

We have a number of observable facts: the fossil record, which we can date and which is clearly suggestive of species evolving from primivitve types to more advanced types. So, that evolution has taken place is very close to being an observed fact. The theory of evolution is an attempt at explaining HOW it happened, not whether it happened. The reason we call it a theory, not a hypothesis, is that it not only explains the huge amounts of observable facts, but also offers testable predictions - and passes the tests. Another reason evolution theory is science is, that it stand or falls with its ability to survive these ongoing tests.

The reason creationism has nothing to do with science is that it explains away facts it doesn't like, it has decided what the truth is from the outset and will never budge, even when faced with clear, contradictory evidence. I personally don't 'believe' in evolution simply because scientists say it is true, but because I can consider the evidence, think about the logic of the theory and make up my own mind. That is what scientists do. If you call that belief, then it is of an completely different kind than religious belief. A religious belief is not influenced by evidence; scientific belief says "I was wrong? Oh well, we live and learn"

"Several thousand years ago..."

[Dr. Manhattan]

"Several thousand years ago, a tribe of ignorant near-savages wrote various collections of myths, wild tales, lies, and gibberish. Over the centuries, these stories wore embroidered, garbled, mutilated, and torn into small pieces that were then repeatedly shuffled. Finally, this material was badly translated into several languages successively. The resultant text, creationists feel, is the best guide to this complex and technical subject [of origins]." - Tom Weller, Science Made Stupid

Re:"Several thousand years ago..."

[earthforce_1]

And a few of those ignorant tribes practiced a form of religion that created a wonderful society that allowed Tom Weller to publish a snarky book and not be taken down to the beach and beheaded.

It's only when the religion lost power and ability to behead people that the age of enlightenment could begin. Galileo narrowly escaped torture and imprisonment for publishing heretical books suggesting the earth was not the centre of the universe. The church only lifted the ban on his books in the mid 18th century. Real reform only happened (like Quebec's quiet revolution) when the church was kicked to the curb.

Re:"Several thousand years ago..."

[porjo]

these stories wore embroidered, garbled, mutilated, and torn into small pieces that were then repeatedly shuffled

Behold the wonder and mystery of the Bible! How is it that *this* book has become the most printed, most widely read and studied text in human history? Only a fool would dismiss it before making an honest attempt to read and understand it.

Re:The people

[wonkey_monkey]

No Santa? Just curious. If so, any unfortunate ramifications?

Re:The people

[fluffernutter]

As a non-religious person, I think I would be fine with considering that religion be seriously explored if everyone with religion could just reach a consensus. Once it is seriously explored for a decade then it could be in schools. Like you say, everyone wants to promote 'their' religion and there is no consensus. On the other hand, all scientists agree on the science being taught. That is really what science has over religion and why it is taken more seriously.

Good sign

[tom229]

While this is worrying, what a lot of people aren't noticing is that this is a good sign. Orthodox Christianity is getting desperate. They're resorting to dirty tactics and forced indoctrination because an educated society has largely realized their little fairy tale is pretty silly. While our initial reaction is to panic over things like this, I look at it as nothing but a drowning man trying to grab onto whatever he can to stay afloat. The truth will win in the end.

Re:Good sign

[Bing Tsher E]

The problem with your triumphant proclamation is that Orthodox Islam isn't dieing in the same way. In fact, it's sorta winning in certain spheres.

But that isn't old-white-man stuff so I suppose it's okay.

Re:The people

[Anonymous Meoward]

We do the Santa thing. But at some point, she'll realize it's all fake. That there is no omnipotent bearded guy watching all the time, yet the presents keep coming.

I think that might be exactly what we want.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[Gilgaron]

Disagree. It is a fact that my cup is blue. I can propose and test a theory as to why it is blue or how long it will remain blue. Throughout all of this it remains blue. Evolution is a fact. That allele frequencies change within populations is a fact. There are theories about why this happens, and so we develop those into theories like Natural Selection and propose further theories about random mutation or inherited epigenetics. The proposed mechanisms about how it works are theories. The observed occurrence is fact.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[serviscope_minor]

In the strict scientific definition, and since we have not seen speciation occur at a macro scale,

Yes we have. There are plenty of examples already posted.

Are you now going to recant your position because your opinion is based on incorrect facts or are you going to keep on believing bullshit?

I'll bet you 1 pint of beer (at London prices) they you stick firmly to your belief in the latter.

the actual problem is...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The problem with Creationists--and the reason it has NO place in a science class

No, the actual problem is that the public school system forces government to make decisions about what is true and what is false. Sometimes government gets it right and sometimes government gets it wrong. Eugenics, forced sterilizations, and racism weren't just widely practiced in the US and Europe, they were justified with scientific results and taught as science in public schools. In particular, many public school textbooks in the US were profoundly racist. Although the goal of having an educated public is a good one, public schools and state-mandated curricula are an instrument of political indoctrination for the ruling classes. In 19th century Germany, for example, the state nationalized Catholic schools because it didn't like what they taught.

It is far better not to seek one absolute truth that government should teach through the school system, but to let parents make their own decisions. Parents will also sometimes get it wrong (as in the case of fundamentalist Christians choosing to teach creationism), but a minority teaching their kids stupid things is less harmful than a government, subject to lobbying and political pressures, imposing a curriculum on an entire state or the nation.

Re:the actual problem is...

[ultranova]

Parents will also sometimes get it wrong (as in the case of fundamentalist Christians choosing to teach creationism), but a minority teaching their kids stupid things is less harmful than a government, subject to lobbying and political pressures, imposing a curriculum on an entire state or the nation.

Sucks for those children, but they're just their parent's property anyway, so they're an acceptable sacrifice for your ideology, eh?

Re:the actual problem is...

[dave420]

Science has improved markedly since the days you talk of, rendering your whole point entirely moot.

Re:the actual problem is...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Science has improved markedly since the days you talk of, rendering your whole point entirely moot.

No, actually science has gotten a lot worse. A lot more people are doing it, meaning the quality has gone done. Many people do science for the money now. There is constant pressure to publish, meaning a lot of sensationalized crap gets published. The "social sciences" have mushroomed. Most scientists don't understand the mathematical, statistical, or computer tools they are using. And every field has gotten so big and specialized that most scientists understand nothing but a narrow slice. Physics, once the solid foundation of science, rooted in sound mathematics and experimental reproducibility, has become speculative, philosophical, and become nearly completely irreproducible at many of its frontiers.

There is a lot more science today, and there is a lot more good science today than there was a century ago; but it is drowned out by an epic flood of bad science. And the bad science is far more likely to be picked up as policy than the good science.

Evolution as means of Creation

[wasteoid]

Nothing prohibits God's use of evolution as a means of Creation. After all, scriptures say a day in heaven is like a thousand days on earth, so God could have used evolution to create mankind.

Re:Evolution as means of Creation

[Inferno Vulpix]

Old Earth Creationism is an interpretation of Genesis that is not compatible with the rest of the Bible. With the assumption that the seven days represent the aeons from the big bang to fully evolved humanity, then there is the problem of how did the Fall into sin happen? Did it happen before the first amoeba was birthed and died (thus contradicting the account of the Bible, in which humanity is explicitly mentioned), because it certainly can't have happened after millions of years of death (death being a product of the Fall). If the Fall into sin just didn't happen and is just another vague metaphor, then what did Jesus die to save us from?

I honestly can't think of a way to mix creation and evolution without stepping on the rest of the Bible as collateral.

Re:Evolution as means of Creation

[shutdown -p now]

OEC is incompatible with the literal reading of the rest of the Bible. The moment you admit that some of those tales are just that, tales, not meant to describe any events precisely, but present an allegory for some pertinent question (which is the doctrine that both Catholics and Orthodox generally adhere to), it's all perfectly compatible.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[serviscope_minor]

We have a number of observable facts: the fossil record, which we can date and which is clearly suggestive of species evolving from primivitve types to more advanced types.

It's even better than that. The fossil record gives rise to a tree of life. Darwin also predicted that there was to be some way of passing on information between generations with errors which was later found to be DNA. Analysis of DNA produces almost exactly the same tree of life as the completely independent fossil record.

So, two utterly independent techniques produce nearly identical results. That's amazing evidence.

Re:The people

[Jason Levine]

I think I would be fine with considering that religion be seriously explored if everyone with religion could just reach a consensus.

Religion hasn't reached a consensus in thousands of years and I doubt it would if given a thousand more. Even within the same religion, there are disagreements. When "religion in public school" advocates talk, they obviously mean Christianity in public schools, but what form of Christianity varies. Catholicism is different from Protestantism which is different than Southern Baptist. Even if the "religion in public school" advocates won and religion was put into all public schools, it would turn into a war as to WHICH variation was added.

(This division exists within Judaism also. Orthodox Jews aren't one group but a loose collection of a hundred different groups, each with it's own particular quirks and practices.)

Re:The people

[Zero__Kelvin]

Is that what you say about drowning children then? Saving these kids isn't going to save the world. Just leave them be.

Re:The people

[dryeo]

Which creationism story? Seems like the stories about Coyote, the trickster creating us is probably the most accurate.
As for the theory of evolution, do you also feel the same about the theory of gravity? It is only a theory.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[omnichad]

Blue is a name for a perceptual concept. That a wave of photons at a wavelength of 475 nm is blue is not a fact, but a definition/tautology. Even calling light a wave (vs. particle or wave/particle duality or whatever more accurate undrestanding we come up with in the future) is more theory than fact.

Saying that a blue thing is blue is a fact, but not a scientific fact. It's just a tautology.

Re:The people

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Atheists probably value personal choice more than ANY other group of people. Nobody says "You cannot teach that religion" except other religions. Atheists say "You can teach all religions - including atheism and agnosticism and pastafarianism - fairly, inside a religious studies class".

You obviously don't value personal choice since you already accept the idea that a single curriculum should be imposed on everybody, you just quibble about the details of that curriculum. Valuing personal choice means letting people make bad choices. It means letting parents make the choice of having their kids taught creationism in school even though it is objectively wrong. That is what "valuing personal choice" actually means.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[omnichad]

And no, direct observation can't be trusted fully so the whole "observed occurrence is fact" has to be seen through the lens that no observer is perfect.

Re:The people

[dbrueck]

Preface: creationism shouldn't be taught in schools except for in e.g. a World Religions or Comparative Religions class or something. It has no place in a science class.

That said I've been in a *lot* of science classes where, instead of sticking to science, the teacher almost gleefully makes the discussion about religion and tries to use science to disprove religion - I remember that as far back as my middle school days and all through high school - it was very, very frequent. Sometimes it was very overt; many times it was just interjecting needless, snarky anti-religion comments that implied that religion and science had to be at odds with each other (they don't) and that obviously only a moron would be religious to any degree. A little Googling reveals that this isn't all that uncommon (although, unfortunately, many of the accounts are often full of hysteria so it's hard to extract the facts, but the fact that there are so many of them is enough to suggest my experience isn't completely unheard of).

So I have to disagree with the idea that "nobody" is teaching that there is no God - I heard that all the time in what should have been science classes. I have no problem with a teacher being personally religious or atheistic or anything in between. I don't have a problem with them acknowledging their belief. But it's completely wrong for either of them to use a science class as a forum for advocating their position, and I've seen both happen so often that I honestly can't say whether either is more common than the other.

Also, maybe I'm just taking this out of context, but the bit about "Atheists probably value personal choice more than ANY other group of people" doesn't ring true to me at all. I see no reason why an atheist would inherently value personal choice regarding beliefs over any other group, and it's easy to find vitriolic, close-minded people all along the belief spectrum, and some of the staunchest defenders of choice I've come across are people who are themselves very religious.

of course you associate them.

[publiclurker]

they are the exact same level of stupidity. Just because someone is pathetic enough to actually believe any of them does not make them any less absurd. It only goes to show how big of a moron they actually are.

Or the E-coli long term evolution experiment.

[publiclurker]

If anything would shut them up this would. Assuming that they are actually interested in reality, of course.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[Gilgaron]

That a direct observation must be corroborated doesn't mean it isn't a fact, either. I think you're conflating empirical fact with a logical truism. Science is always at least the slightest bit tentative, but we can certainly be comfortable with labeling things scientific facts since we know this.

Re:This is America!

[everett]

Unfortunately there are very well educated people who chose to ignore the science side of academia.

Your argument is logically inconsistent. They may be educated, but if they ignored the science curricula I don't think anyone would argue they were "well educated"

do you believe in both sides of addition too

[publiclurker]

or are you trying to hide behind a false shield of impartiality to avoid admitting that you are a clueless tool?

Re:This is America!

[Coren22]

I would like to point out that belief in creationism isn't part of modern Catholicism at least:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

so trying to conflate religion and creationism is kind of disrespectful to the majority of Christianity that does not approve of creationism.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[guruevi]

In an ideal world the state should require schools to educate a curriculum based around scientific facts (such as mathematics, geography, astronomy, biology which includes evolution), critical thinking and satisfying curiosity and parents should not be allowed to abuse their children by hamstringing this natural curiosity by teaching them that no-questions-allowed-gawd-did-it.

Sadly we do not live in a perfect world and the state barely requires any scientific education but the state should definitely not be allowed to teach religious nonsense to the children. Any teacher that teaches creationism should be fired, any parent that requests creationism thought in classes should be ignored.

Bing and Google don't help

[FreeUser]

Google and bing don't help. Google highlights creationist mythology as though it were scientific fact, and bing has the same nonsense cropping up as its first hit. Clearly these mysanthropes have managed to game the search engines, and the search engines can't be bothered to fact-check their own results (or highlighted articles! Come on Google, grow a brain!). A pity they can't use that same intelligence to think their way out of their own ass.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[SuiteSisterMary]

Ok, then it's a 'fact' that when a broad spectrum light is shone at that cup, the waves reflected are predominantly in the 475 nm range, which we happen to observe as 'blue.'

When shone at this cup, however, the waves reflected are lower in frequency, and we observe them as 'red'. Now you come up with a theory to explain that.

Similarly, Newton noticed the 'fact' that a thing dropped six feet from the Earth's surface will fall at 9.8 m/s^2, once you've factored in air resistance and the like. He then used that to build a Theory of Universal Gravitation. Which turned out to be wrong in some cases.

Science precludes God and demands evolution?

[Sevalecan]

There was a discussion on a particular image site the other day about Bill Nye complaining that creationism is anti-intellectual. What I find ironic is that most people here, and 'scientists' including Nye seem to understand what science is or how it works.

This is science: You perform experiments to confirm or deny that some theory is likely to be generally true, to come up with some level of prediction of how things will play out. It is always possible that it won't play out in a well tested way, but with every successful experiment the chance grows smaller, but never to zero. This is the key, you can't prove that things "are not" or "do not." You can observe, and show that something is, any number of times but not infinity. That, realistically to anyone who can admit the limits of their own knowledge and methodology, is science.

Instead, everyone talking about science believes creationism is wrong because God hasn't been scientifically observed, falsely concluding that this disproves his existence rather than fails to demonstrate it experimentally. Or somehow the fact that some people can come up with the idea of evolution that it must therefore be true if we can argue there's some infinitesimally small chance that it is actually capable of producing the results it has. Nobody here has been standing around for billions of years to observe that.

One last thing... Did the billions of galaxies out there fail to exist 1000 or 2000 years ago because we didn't have the technology or know-how to observe them? Because that is what Nye and this article imply. The unobserved does not exist. Except when it does in the case of evolution or the big bang, because that's the side they've chosen and it's convenient for their argument.

Re:Science precludes God and demands evolution?

[Cajun Hell]

everyone talking about science believes creationism is wrong because God hasn't been scientifically observed, falsely concluding that this disproves his existence rather than fails to demonstrate it experimentally.

And by "everyone" concluding that, you mean nobody.

Did the billions of galaxies out there fail to exist 1000 or 2000 years ago because we didn't have the technology or know-how to observe them? Because that is what Nye and this article imply. The unobserved does not exist.

No, what it means is that anyone who talked about billions of galaxies 1000 years ago, was talking out of their ass, and making up crazy shit. Nobody knew there were billions of galaxies nor had reason to suspect there were billions of galaxies. And if by amazing chance, someone back then said there are billions of galaxies, they were being either stupid or dishonest (or both). Even if they just happened to be correct, I guarantee that their arguments for saying that, were no less stupid and no less deceitful, than their neighbor who talked about the world being carried by Great A'Tuin.

Yes, a god could exist, but we have no reason to think it might, and no reason to think we know what it's like, or what its name is, or how many there are, or how big or fast or smart they are, whether or not they love or hate gays, etc. But mystics just pile the bullshit on top of bullshit, in an enormous pile, ignoring that even the first piece stunk. It's no less crazy than talking about unicorns, and saying it's wrong is no crazier than saying someone's ideas about the existence of unicorns is wrong.

Pick a card, any card, but don't say it out loud.

I know what card you picked. You picked the three of hearts.

Was I right? There's a 1/52 chance I was right, but a 52/52 chance that I was fucking lying. The truth is that I didn't have the faintest idea what card you would pick, and if you listen to my bullshit about how I know what cards people will pick, you are not on the path to learning anything, except maybe about how good I am at slinging bullshit. After all my bullshit, you still won't know anything more about cards or how to predict what card people will choose. It is empty of knowledge.

Re:Science precludes God and demands evolution?

[tehcyder]

everyone talking about science believes creationism is wrong because God hasn't been scientifically observed, falsely concluding that this disproves his existence rather than fails to demonstrate it experimentally

No, most atheists would be happy with any sort of evidence that God exists. Atheists do not need to prove a negative, since it is by definition impossible.

However, someone saying "I have felt the presence of God, therefore He exists" or "I have faith in God, therefore He exists, although I have no experience of Him myself is not evidence.

Re:This is America!

[JackieBrown]

I'd be willing to be the majotity of people on this site past 30 were taught this but managed to "overcome" this.

And no matter how much you want to label anyone that believes in God as an idiot, it is simply not true.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[omnichad]

Observations are facts, I can grant that to some degree. But observations aren't science. So science has no facts.

Re:This is America!

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

The world needs ditch diggers and fry cooks, too

Re:The people

[Zalbik]

I am an atheist, and I DO want religion taught in schools. In a religious studies and/or history class.

I think it is fairly ridiculous that a phenomena that has had a huge impact on history, culture, art, laws, etc throughout the world is NOT taught in school. I also believe that if children understood the variety of backgrounds/beliefs in the world they may grow up understanding people from other cultures a little better.

The beliefs themselves should be taught not as a "this is a true thing", but as a "this is something people believe", with an emphasis on historical and cultural differences.

The USA has spent a whole pile of money getting involved in a conflict that is somewhat related to religious belief. Teaching an understanding of those beliefs helps create a better formed electorate, which IMHO is one of the primary purposes of public education.

I do agree however, that religion is not something for any schools (public or private) to cover in science class. It makes about as much sense as teaching Shakespeare in math class.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[SuiteSisterMary]

Observations are the basis of science. You make several observations, craft a theory to explain them, then devise experiments to produce more observations, and see if the theory does or does not fit with them.

Re:This is America!

[praxis]

The majority of creationists *are* Christian, but are *not* Catholic. If you are upset that Catholics' good names are sullied by creationism, you should point your anger at creationists, not those pointing out that creationists are religious nuts, because they *are* religious nuts.

Re:The people

[Jason Levine]

I agree with you about religion in a religious studies/history class. You could also put religion in a philosophy or social studies class and it would fit nicely. As you said, it should be presented as "some people believe X", not "this is the absolute truth." Also, while I understand that class time wouldn't allow all religions to be discussed, a decent sampling should be covered.

Of course, there is sure to be controversy when 1) Islam is covered and the Islamophobes freak out over "public schools converting our kids to Islam", 2) Christianity is covered from a historical perspective and the religious folks don't like hearing that the "Virgin Mary" and Christmas stories evolved as a method to help assimilate some tribes, or 3) Wicca is covered leading the religious folks to cry out over witchcraft in the schools.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[omnichad]

And the theory and the experiments and the hypotheses are science. Observations are the beginning of science, but any facts that come from pure observation are not scientific facts.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[serviscope_minor]

So science has no facts.

Yeah it pretty much does. F=ma in a the macroscopic non relativistic world is a fact. The laws of thermodynamics are facts. We evolved --- that's a fact too.

What's wrong with the example given

[Attila Dimedici]

I did not read the article. However, the summary states that the presentation which refers students to the "Answers in Genesis" website also refers them to two sites which are critical of "Answers in Genesis". That seems like a good idea to me.

It is likely that students in Louisiana are going to come across the arguments made by "Answers in Genesis" sooner or later. Don't you think it would be a good idea for them to exposed to those arguments AND the counter-arguments at the same time?

It's funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

anti-"god" people are allowed to be anti-god and push their agenda...

yet anti-science people aren't.

Yet, science cannot prove the big bang (at least where all the matter came from - they say it's impossible to just appear out of nowhere on its own)...yet, fail to recognize that a greater being can possibly exist...something even darwin acknowledged...

Re:It's funny...

[jeff4747]

Uh, we do know where the matter came from. E=mc^2 goes in both directions. You have enough E, you will create some m.

Re:The people

[ledow]

There is a line here.

If you do not draw the line, people will pull their kids out of school entirely and never educate them.

However, there is ALWAYS a choice of being able to send your kids elsewhere, to a school that supports your ideals. That place, however, is not the free state-provided schools that are legally required to teach any and all that come along without payment.

In that place, you are taught a curriculum compliant with the nation's interests. If you want to pull your kids out and home-educate them, you can. If you want to send your kids to a religious school, you can. It may cost, it may not. But you're asking "the state" to teach your kids AND ALL THE OTHERS IN THE CLASS something which most of them do not believe, and which the vast global consensus of science does not believe, forcibly, in a lesson about science.

It's not fair on anyone to be without choice. But in the same way that literal freedom can only equate with anarchy ("I'm free to nick all your stuff for my purposes"), literal choice means no curriculum.

However, we live in the real world (most of us anyway). In that world you have to proscribe a curriculum for compulsory education. Having that curriculum teach creationism IN SCIENCE LESSONS is like having someone teach pro-Nazism in your Maths lessons. It has no place there. Teach it in RS, because it's a religion. Nobody says you CAN'T teach it, we're saying teach it where it is suitable to be taught.

The state already decided centuries ago that you don't get complete freedom of choice - that's why you can't NOT send your children to school. However, you should be able to NOT send your children to a school that teaches creationism in a science lesson.

In my country (and continent), it's ILLEGAL to do what the creationist schools are doing. Specifically. Completely. Absolutely. There is a legal opt-out of any and all religious things that you do not want your children taught - whether mainstream religions or lack-of-religion. You have to mark it on school databases of pupil information. You have to ensure that they don't suffer by not having it (i.e. make up the time doing something else worthwhile with them). You have to ensure they aren't exposed to it unwittingly (e.g. singing hymns in an assembly). You have to ask about it and record it and keep religion strictly in RS lessons.

Because it has no place outside a RS lesson in the same way the political affiliation of the school's principal has no place in a Latin lesson.

When freedoms impinge on one another, you get a choice. I have the freedom to not have my daughter exposed to that shit by others without my knowledge, and others have the right to not have their children lectured by me about their religious affiliations. What creationists want is EVERYONE to be taught creationism no matter what, under the state education system. Without opt-out or alternative. That's a freedom being removed. That's illegal in many countries.

Valuing personal choice is important. However it does not supercede the rights of others. It's your CHOICE to educate YOUR child how you like, and to believe what you want. It does not supercede MY choice to not do so. And when a state school has to deal with both children, that means compartmentalising the curriculum and providing opt-out. Both of which, it's the ABSENCE of that anti-creationists are angry about.

Teach your child about the magical dinosaur bones that popped out of nowhere. But don't instruct teachers who have degrees in subjects like archaeology that they have to teach that, and certainly not to my child who will only hear about that in the context of "Yes, darling, some stupid people believe that..."

Republicans don't like being poor

[Anonymous Coward]

As bleak as it may seem, I have faith in one thing that will prevent the complete downfall of our economy

Republicans HATE being poor

So as much as they LOVE their conservative values, if their beliefs get in the way of economic growth, you can be guaranteed that the all might dollar will win EVERY time. And, from experience, I also know that they can see the forest for the trees.

Re:This is America!

[Penguinisto]

Depends - there's a huge difference between knowing everything there is to know about precipitation, but not being wise enough to get out of the rain when it's cold outside.

Re:Religion and mathematics

[tekrat]

Yes, Two plus two equals Five.... because God Says So.

This is the start of the downfall of the Roman... Errr American Empire.

Re:This is America!

[Penguinisto]

This, right here.

The physicist who first came up with what would eventually be called the 'Big Bang' theory was a Catholic priest, FFS...

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[riondluz]

Long bone, long bone, lotsa little bones.

We humans are snowflakes but hardly special

Re: This is America!

[AvitarX]

If memory serves me, gene therory was proposed by priests too.

Re: This is America!

[Penguinisto]

An Augustinian Friar, actually - Gregor Mendel

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[SuiteSisterMary]

All science is, is the attempt to make sense of observations, and to anticipate future observations.

Re:This is America!

[dkman]

Yea that 's what I don't get about the Creationists. Evolution is observable and happens, period. If you want to believe that God causes evolution or that evolution is part of God's plan... then fine, but why the hell do they decide to argue that evolution is a lie?

Same thing with the big bang. It makes me want to say "Creationists are retards", even though I'm smart enough to know that saying that isn't productive. It's infuriating.

Hint:

[Dr. Manhattan]

I figured it would be marked "funny". Check the source.

Not that I don't agree with the general sentiment when it comes to creationists. But it's not like arguments haven't been presented on that score. Sometimes you just gotta be funny.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[omnichad]

Exactly. It's "observation and", never just "observation."

Belief v 'confidence'

[Bruce66423]

Nope - you are making a false distinction here. I can only assume that you don't have any friends who are seriously religious with whom you have discussed the matter; especially for those who grew up outside the faith and later became believers, there is no doubt that they made a decision to live by the new world view which now became the most reasonable to accept. And remember that many many people who are intellectual giants have made that choice - it is a foolish canard that only the intellectually weak are religious.

Your claim that you can make 'tests' in geology is especially interesting. One of the more striking features in geology is the persistence of discordant dates in radioisotope dating; if you use different methods you get dates that do NOT overlap. Because the consensus is so strong that is a 'stoning offence' to seriously question the old earth hypothesis, these are routinely ignored. The alternative - suggested by the trick of offering newly generated rocks from volcanoes that show up as millions of years old when commercially dated - is that it's all actually hogwash. But you just get shouted at for that...

I have to be honest - there are facts that give creationists a hard time. But equally there are facts that give evolutionists a hard time as well. Both sides enjoy pointing out the planks in their opponent's eye. And both have vast amounts invested in being right - because their life choices in far wider areas are often determined by the perceived credibility of these claims: the trope of the fundamentalist kid who rejects his faith because evolution comes to convince him is well founded in reality. Add in the observation that humans usually conform to the dominant world belief when exposed to it over an extended period, it is a surprise that any survive exposure to secular colleges...

Given the absence of test tubes in which geological and palaeontological observations can be recreated to demonstrate that the interpretations made are correct, it is simplistic to categorise evolution and chemistry together as the same sort of science. As someone who started as a STEM student and is now a historian, it makes far more sense to see geology and palaeontology as branches of that arts subject and not 'science'. We historians tell stories based on observations culled from 'sources', both written and archaeological. Ultimately so does evolution and palaeontology.

Re:Belief v 'confidence'

[Ol Olsoc]

Nope - you are making a false distinction here. I can only assume that you don't have any friends who are seriously religious with whom you have discussed the matter; especially for those who grew up outside the faith and later became believers, there is no doubt that they made a decision to live by the new world view which now became the most reasonable to accept.

I was raised in a very religious family. Between that and reading the Bible, Hell or heaven are the same for me.

To this day, I have little patience for y'all. But tell me, where is the peer reviewd evidence that proves that The Abrahamic god exists. Love to see that. You apply conditions to everything else that you won't to your belief.

And that's my point. I can point ot something that gives me confidence. That is the differnce between confidence and belief.

I'll wait for those peer reviewd studies.

Re:This is America!

[Anonymous Coward]

MMMM... Chick-fil-a.

Tastes like hate!

Re:The people

[wonkey_monkey]

Yes, hadn't thought of it that way...

Re:The people

[dbrueck]

Wow, those are some pretty huge generalizations, of both religious people and atheists.

Sadness ensues

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Parent: "My child done learned something!"

School: 'I can assure you this will not happen again.'

Ah, evidence.

[Dr. Manhattan]

It has nothing to do with evolution.

Ah, but it does indeed. It shows that variation does in fact respond to environment. It's only one piece of the puzzle, though. No one claims that the peppered moths, by themselves, prove evolution. There's a lot more to it than that.

Take that variation, for example, and you can link it to speciation - which we can observe today. Heard of 'ring species'? The Larus gulls are several subspecies where variants live in a ring around the Arctic. The Herring Gull in the U.K. can interbreed with the American Herring Gull, and the American can interbreed with the Vega Gull in Russia. And so on, until you come to the Lesser Black-Backed Gull in the Netherlands. It basically can’t breed with the Herring Gull. Hybrids are extremely rare and don't seem to be fertile, like mules.

So, is it a separate species? You could breed it with its relative to the East, and so on. But what if, say, the Vega Gull went extinct? Would you have separate species then?

Now, imagine such variations happening across time instead of (or as well as) space, and you’ve got an idea how species actually do form, instead of the ’saltationist’ strawman that many try to imply.

We have a theory how we think this works but we haven't gotten conclusive evidence.

The thing is, we have so gotten conclusive evidence. Here's one you can partially check on your own body. Lay your fingers on the side of your jaw. Now, trace along the edge up to the very top of the jawbone. Notice how close your fingers are to your ear canal. Inside the inner ear are three bones, the ossicles: malleus, incus, and stapes. They are carefully arranged to transfer sound energy from the eardrum to the cochlea as efficiently as possible. How could such an amazing mechanism arise?

It turns out that a classification of dinosaur called the therapsids had two jaw joints. The therapsids are known (by several independent lines of evidence) to be ancestral to modern mammals... and we have a basically complete fossil record of the gradual transition of one of those jaw joints into the modern bones of the inner ear. Fossils representing over a dozen separate stages have been found. Note that intermediate steps were all advantageous, though not as efficient or optimized. Some transitional forms did help amplify sound energy but didn't work while the animal was chewing. We still have problems with that under some circumstances (try to listen to someone while eating celery) but the separation is far more developed now.

(Note that some have even cited the ossicles as 'irreducibly complex'. The more central figures of the ID 'movement', like Behe and Shermer, haven't done so... but I suspect that's because they know enough of the detailed fossil record to dissuade them.)

Or, my absolute favorite - the twin nested hierarchies! Books used to be copied by scribes, and (despite a lot of care) sometimes typos would be introduced. Later scribes, making copies of copies, would introduce other typos. It's possible to look at the existing copies and put them into a 'family tree'. "These copies have this typo, but not that one; this other group has yet another typo, though three of them have a newer typo as well, not seen elsewhere..." This is not controversial at all when dealing with books, including the Bible.

Now, this process of copy-with-modification naturally produces 'family trees', nested groups. When we look at life, we find such nested groups. No lizards with fur or nipples, no mammals with feathers, etc. Living things (at least, multicellular ones, see below) fit into a grouped hierarchy. This has been solidly recognized for over a thousand years, and systematized for centuries. It was one of the clues that led Darwin to propose evolution. (Little-known fact: Linnaeus, who invented the "kingdom, phyla, genus, species, etc." classification scheme for living things, tried to do the same thin

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[Gilgaron]

When doing science I am performing experiments and recording my observations in detail as data. My observations must be carefully done to be useful science, but they are still 'only' observations. The observations I make after mowing the lawn and having a few beers would have to be corroborated to a much higher degree as they would be done without rigor in an uncontrolled environment.

The truth hurts

[mark_reh]

because the truth is all there is...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:This is America!

[danlip]

I'm 43, grew up in Florida, and never heard any creationist BS in public schools. The creationism resurgence seems like a new phenomenon to me.

Re:This is America!

[shaitand]

I'm 33 and a very outdated concept of evolution was taught, emphasized as just being a theory, followed by watching the ten commandments. We were told that while the class does not teach the bible as factual it remains one of the most useful and accurate historical references to date.

Re:This is America!

[shaitand]

Because many Christian cults believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and evolution is contradictory to that. Then again the two genesis stories are contradictory as well. *shrug*

Re:The people

[BitZtream]

The irony with Christians hating evolutionary development and the story of our cosmos is that Christians are mostly the ones who discovered or verified the data. They freak the fuck out if you point out that they took a metaphor and treated it as literal and factual when it was never meant that way.

There is nothing you can do to fix the ignorant that refuse to learn.

You can't convince them that a Catholic postulated the Big Bang Theory, but tell them God created the earth in "7 days" and they'll eat it up. You can't even define days without the light, and that wasn't there for until the Sun was formed on the 4th fraking day!

Not implying Darwin was a Christian either, but plenty of Christian scientists have verified and agreed with his theories or helped refine him.

If your going to teach religion in science class, it's just as appropriate in English, Math, or home economics. I.e. It doesn't belong in any of them

Re:This is America!

[ClickOnThis]

The majority of creationists *are* Christian, but are *not* Catholic.

Nor are they members of mainline protestant denominations.

Proof? That's impossible

[Bruce66423]

Because God is not a repeatable phenomenon but a person who sometimes chooses to intervene, and sometimes doesn't. It's therefore impossible to prove He exists; the best that we can do is engage with the testimonies of today and the past, and decide whether those stories of miracles are best explained by there being a God. For me the resurrection of Jesus remains the most convincing story from the bible; the reestablishment of the state of Israel and its survival in the 1973 war (especially on the Golan Heights where a small unit fought off most of the Syrian army).

However for a 'scientific' demonstration, the work of the Lourdes International Medical Commitee in studying the miracles that do occur at Lourdes and seeing if there is a non-miraculous explanation takes some beating. http://en.lourdes-france.org/d... Enjoy.

Creationism marks a theorcacy

[gweihir]

Creationism being taught by law is something that can only happen in a theocracy that forces religion on people. Creationism is a purely religious construct with zero scientific underpinning. In any state that has freedom of religion, creationism cannot be mandated to be taught.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[gweihir]

Evolution is regarded as fact in the scientific sense, just as, for example, the Theory of Gravity is regarded as fact. Sure, any statement about observable reality has some uncertainty, but a scientific fact does not need absolute certainty. This nonsense about facts needing to be 100% is routinely used by anti-science people, but it is not true, except in some areas of Mathematics and Philosophy. All other realize that statements about reality will always have a margin of error and use "well-established Fact" or the like and often drop the qualified because it is understood to be there.

Re:This is America!

[gweihir]

Be careful with that. There is good reason to suspect these people were just religious because society demanded it, and that many of them actually did not believe that party line.

Evolution is not theory as in "speculation"

[gweihir]

Really, all the people promoting the myth that Evolution is "just a theory" have zero understanding of Science. Evolution is a theory in the sense of "model that explains how something works", same as "Theory of Gravity", "Theory of the integer numbers", etc. The word for "speculative explanation" in Science is "Hypothesis".

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

In an ideal world the state should require schools to educate a curriculum based around scientific facts (such as mathematics, geography, astronomy, biology which includes evolution), critical thinking and satisfying curiosity

The problem with that thinking is that once you give those powers to the state, the state will use it to teach racism, fascism, intolerance, and obedience to the ruling classes. Believe me, I grew up in a country that did just that.

and parents should not be allowed to abuse their children by hamstringing this natural curiosity by teaching them that no-questions-allowed-gawd-did-it.

It is far better that a few parents "abuse" their children by trying to indoctrinate them religiously than that a powerful and wealthy elite use the public education system to indoctrinate everybody.

One's right to life, liberty, property, speech, press, freedom of worship and assembly may not be submitted to vote

Yet, that is exactly what you are advocating.

Re:Have you been leeched today?

[Attila Dimedici]

Well, actually I recall being taught Aether Theory in physics class with an explanation about why the theory was believed for a time and why it stopped being believed. It was a great way to teach how science works.

However, the example given does not actually say that the presentation taught the "Answers in Genesis" theories, it merely told the students about them and gave them the link to where they were presented. The most important part is that they gave not one but two links which countered the arguments made by "Answers in Genesis".

Your response does not surprise me, all too many people claim to want to teach children to think as an excuse to not teach them at all. Then they insist on only allowing them to see information which agrees with their own point of view. If you want children to think, you need to teach them to look at the arguments made on both sides of an issue. The "Answers in Genesis" arguments are believed by a large number of people. The reason for that is that they make some good arguments. You will not defeat those arguments by hand-waving and saying "real scientists don't believe that." You need to actually make the counter-arguments.

No, you weren't.

[Dr. Manhattan]

Well, no, actually, you were not taught abiogenesis "as a fact". Not in a public school.

You were taught that abiogenesis exists as a hypothesis (note, not a theory, and that scientists are actively researching it.

If you want to convince me otherwise, I'm afraid you'll need to de-anonymize and specify the school and timeframe involved.

Re:The people

[dave420]

You didn't have religious studies classes at school? We did (in the UK), and they were really informative. They just looked at each of the major religions and taught what adherents believe, what they do, and why they do it. I was an atheist going in, and a better-informed atheist coming out :)

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[dave420]

It would be even better to fix the system than to throw a bunch of kids under the knowledge bus simply because their parents are backwards religious muppets. If science lessons are only allowed to teach scientific facts, then we'd be fine. The examples you cited were not of rigorous science, but of claims dressed up in scientific terms, just like creationism.

Re:The people

[tehcyder]

Atheists probably value personal choice more than ANY other group of people. Nobody says "You cannot teach that religion" except other religions. Atheists say "You can teach all religions - including atheism and agnosticism and pastafarianism - fairly, inside a religious studies class".

You obviously don't value personal choice since you already accept the idea that a single curriculum should be imposed on everybody, you just quibble about the details of that curriculum. Valuing personal choice means letting people make bad choices. It means letting parents make the choice of having their kids taught creationism in school even though it is objectively wrong. That is what "valuing personal choice" actually means.

What utter bullshit. By that argument, schools should be forced to conduct white supremacist classes because some parents are neo nazi scum.

It is entirely reasonable for society's wishes about how and what to teach children to override the deranged beliefs of some idiotic parents.

Re:This is America!

[tehcyder]

This, right here.

The physicist who first came up with what would eventually be called the 'Big Bang' theory was a Catholic priest, FFS...

Yeah, and with a bit of creative fudging (e.g. the seven days of Genesis were actually seven "ages" or something) you can even convince yourself that the Bible is actually describing the Big Bang and the history of the universe from its beginning to the appearance of man. Sort of.

As we can't say what came before the Big Bank, it's not impossible that there was just God sitting around waiting for something to do.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[tehcyder]

So, is your view of education that the state should decide what is true and what is false and then force those truths upon children, even against the wishes of their parents?

Yes.

If parents want to lie to their children, they can do it at home.

PS you're supposed to say "force those truths upon children AT THE BARREL OF A GUN". Any transaction involving teh government is always AT THE BARREL OF A GUN.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[tehcyder]

The problem with that thinking is that once you give those powers to the state, the state will use it to teach racism, fascism, intolerance, and obedience to the ruling classes. Believe me, I grew up in a country that did just that.

If you live in a fascist state, your kids are going to be brainwashed anyway. The only solution is for the people to rise up and destroy the fascist state, not wonder about what marching songs little Timmy is being taught at school.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

It would be even better to fix the system than to throw a bunch of kids under the knowledge bus

The system is not fixable. Either you force people to make (what some group believes to be) good choices against their will, or some people are going to make bad choices. Furthermore, if you give anybody the power to force others to make good choices against their will, that power is invariably going to be abused. Explain this: assuming that there were superior men who actually possessed the knowledge, wisdom, and honesty to make good decisions for everybody, how would they get into a position of power?

The examples you cited were not of rigorous science, but of claims dressed up in scientific terms, just like creationism.

You're committing a subtle error there resulting in a false dichotomy. Those theories weren't "rigorous science" in the sense that we now know them to be wrong. But then you switch to the term "dressed up", which implies deliberate deception. But those theories weren't caused by deliberate deception either. People simply got the science wrong and then applied their incorrect understanding to politics.

Eugenics wasn't some grand conspiracy by some ill-meaning people deliberately misusing science, it was a rational policy based on an incorrect understanding of limited data and genetics. Scientific socialism and fascist economics weren't deliberate fabrications, they were typical scientific theories in the social sciences.

And today's science is no different: critical race theory, Keynesianism, ordoliberalism, and all the other theories dominating current politics make many of the same mistakes as those older theories. Occasionally, science in politics gets something right (e.g., teaching evolution), but more often, it doesn't.

Re:The people

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

By that argument, schools should be forced to conduct white supremacist classes because some parents are neo nazi scum.

No, not at all. Schools shouldn't be forced to do anything. Parents should get vouchers and be free to send their kids to schools that reflect their own values and beliefs.

It is entirely reasonable for society's wishes about how and what to teach children to override the deranged beliefs of some idiotic parents.

That means that you're saying that if the majority of people in Louisiana decide that creationism should be taught in school and evolution is a "deranged belief", then people should be forced to comply. Right?

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

If you live in a fascist state, your kids are going to be brainwashed anyway.

Oh, this isn't unique to fascist states, it's the hallmark of totalitarian societies: fascist, communist, socialist, monarchies, theocracies, progressive states.

The only solution is for the people to rise up and destroy the fascist state, not wonder about what marching songs little Timmy is being taught at school.

Well, which is why people like me "rise up" against fascists like you. Fortunately, fascists like you are gradually losing in the political arena, as people are less and less willing to put up with your bullshit.

Re:This is America!

[Penguinisto]

I'm pretty sure there's a big difference between being a layperson who was "religious because society demanded it", and enduring years of seminary education to become full-blown clergy. ;)

Let me re-iterate: Father LeMâitre (the physicist I was referring to) was a priest. Not a deacon, not a layperson who said he was Catholic... he took the whole vow of poverty/chastity/obedience, led masses, heard confessions, etc etc.

Re:This is America!

[gweihir]

So? Refusing a chance to become a priest may be suspicious. In those times, it may even have eventually gotten you killed. Also remember that basically the only way to be able to do science was to become a monk. That can easily derail into having to become a priest to keep the cover intact.

Re:The people

[david_thornley]

In general, they aren't saying Christianity should be taught in schools. They mean a fairly strict version of Protestantism. Teaching Roman Catholicism or Orthodox religion would be almost as bad as teaching Islam.

Re:The people

[david_thornley]

If you don't like what public schools teach, you do have alternatives. It's really not my business what's taught in a Catholic or Pastafarian school, provided the students get a decent education, and no tax money winds up being spent on religion. Given that we do have public schools, we do need some sort of curriculum. Since that curriculum cannot favor any religion, it's important to keep religion out of classes where it doesn't belong. In particular, science classes should not mention religion (for or against), but should stick to what we've good evidence of. (Unless, of course, the class is looking at the history of science, which is tied with religion at certain periods.)

If you want to teach your kids nonsense based on bad interpretations of allegedly sacred writings, you go ahead. Just don't use any of my tax money to do so.

End Public Schooling

[TonyXL]

Then parents can choose whatever school and curriculum they want for their children.

Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact

[david_thornley]

However, the recorded perception is a fact. There's a black plastic case in front of me. Therefore, it's a fact that I observed a black plastic case. I may in fact have been mistaken, or I may be lying, or I may not be in a good environment to judge blackness (a blue object may appear black in red light). The case, if it really exists, may have been manufactured black, or it might contain a light-absorbing field of some sort, or it may have been cursed by a demon. (Personally, I think one of these is far more likely than the other two.)

No problem

[TheRealLifeboy]

Just make sure that you tell kids as much as possible about evolution and creationism. If they are informed, then they can see through the BS and make a good informed choice. If you try to hide things, well... then you'll end up with dumb people who can't make good choices.

Oh, wait... that's what we have already.

Creation Is True

[LiveFreeOrDieInTheGo]

Is it impossible for God, the God described in the Bible, to exist?

If you can engage in an honest debate, I will. Let's set a time limit of 3 days. Let me know if you need more time.

BTW, the only evidence for evolution is micro-evolution, which is called adaptation. Darwin's finches and the stickleback fish are both examples of adaptation.

There is no evidence for these five:

• macro-evolution
• biological evolution
• solar evolution
• chemical evolution
• stellar evolution

Anyone who is an evolutionism proponent, can you supply empirical evidence or evidence supported by the scientific method to support any of the five?

Two questions, I'd like to hear from someone who professes to be atheist or an evolutionist.

Re:Creation Is True

[LiveFreeOrDieInTheGo]

Since you answered Yes, I have another question for you. Is it possible that everything you think that you know to be true is false?

This is NOT meant to be hyperbole. Rather, I am asking a serious question.

I know God in the Lord Jesus Christ, and all things are created by Him, through Him, and for Him. He will judge the living and the dead, and those that deny Him will suffer an eternal death. On the other hand, all those born of the Spirit will live in eternal joy of Christ.

Think of evolution for a moment. What of it is empirical? What of it follows the scientific method? Science is not the problem, rather the problem is wrong conclusions and wrong variables assignment. So I ask again, can you demonstrate using the scientific method, any evidence of macro evolution, that is a change of one kind of creature into another?

Re:The people

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Given that we do have public schools, we do need some sort of curriculum.

There's a much simpler solution: give people school vouchers and school choice.

and no tax money winds up being spent on religion

It's unclear that the Constitution imposes that requirement in the first place.

If you want to teach your kids nonsense based on bad interpretations of allegedly sacred writings, you go ahead. Just don't use any of my tax money to do so.

If you want to teach your kids nonsense based on bad interpretations of science, you go ahead. Just don't use any of my tax money to do it.

Re:The people

[porjo]

NOBODY is running into schools and telling kids there is no God

And yet that is precisely the conclusion most kids will arrive at after reading a biology textbook wax lyrical about the big bang, billions of years etc. Either that, or modern Science's explanation for the origin of the universe is guesswork at best!

Re:The people

[david_thornley]

I should have been more precise: spending money on a specific religion in particular is establishing a religion, and hence unconstitutional. This applies to teaching in tax-supported schools (non-public schools can use their own resources to teach what religion they want).

The Constitution does not make it illegal to spend tax money on science, and teaching well-established science to children is a good thing to do. (I can find lots of religious figures to disagree with any religious doctrine you can name. Can you find lots of scientists working in biology that don't think evolution happened?)

Re:The people

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The Constitution does not make it illegal to spend tax money on science,

The Constitution is a list of enumerated powers of government, not a list of limits on government. The Amendments are a clarification, meaning, "these things in particular, are not among the enumerated powers".

Spending money on science isn't one of the enumerated powers of the US Constitution, although you might be able to squeeze it in with some hand waving argument. But defining and mandating school curricula certainly isn't one of the enumerated powers of the US Constitution and should be considered an abhorrent abuse of governmental power.

On the other hand, the Constitution certainly does not make it illegal for the government to give parents money for school vouchers that they then use at a school of their choice, including a religious school, just like they can with their welfare checks or their social security checks.

and teaching well-established science to children is a good thing to do

Teaching scientific truth is a good thing to do; teaching well-established science is not. You're confusing "well-established" with "truth" and setting up the government to be the arbiter of scientific truth; that corrupts science and invites abuse. Scientific racism was "well-established" both in the US and in Nazi Germany, and was taught as such in schools. It just wasn't true.

If you accept the principle that it is the job of government to determine scientific truth, it won't just do so in clear cut cases, like evolution, it will also do so in less clear cut cases, for the purposes of political gain and greed, as it did with scientific racism, Keynesianism, and scientific socialism.

"Madam, we've already established what kind of woman you are. Now we are haggling about the price”

Re:The people

[DrVxD]

A lifetime of having to think for themselves?

Read the school history books

[MoarSauce123]

Just look at the "history" books they use in schools and how twisted and wrong even more current events are described in there. Some backwoods conservatives insisting on teaching creationism is the least of our concerns here! There is generally too much influence from the pseudoreligious fundamentalists on public life.

Re:The people

[david_thornley]

Spending money for the General Welfare IS one of the enumerated powers. It's very broad, but it doesn't go deep. The US Government cannot mandate a national curriculum. What it can do is bribe states into it. (Arguably, the US Government got much more power with the ability to impose national income taxes, since before that it didn't have enough money to make all those bribes.)

There is nothing in the Constitution saying that the Feds can give people school vouchers, except for that General Welfare clause. If the Feds can legally spend on education, they can legally spend on science.

I have no idea why you think scientific truth is fine and well-established science isn't. Scientific truths are trivial in themselves. Anything that's generally useful is not "scientific truth", but rather well-established science. Quantum mechanics isn't truth; it's the best theory we have to explain certain phenomena. It's a well-established theory, having predicted a whole lot of things correctly and explaining observations so well that it's annoying. The theory of gravity is well established. It isn't truth (and has been changing for about a century now).

The government does not have to determine what's well-established science, it can leave that to scientists. It does have to determine what's religion, to avoid stepping in or on it.

Re:The people

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Spending money for the General Welfare IS one of the enumerated powers.

That is incorrect; the General Welfare clause is not a "power" granted to the government, it's a (vague) limit on what taxes can be spent on. That is, you cannot use the General Welfare clause to justify action by the government, only to justify limits on government.

There is nothing in the Constitution saying that the Feds can give people school vouchers,

I agree: the federal government has no business spending money on education at all. However, given that it is spending money on education, there is no constitutional reason why it can't flow to religious schools if the recipients of that money make that choice.

I have no idea why you think scientific truth is fine and well-established science isn't.

I have no idea what "fine" means, and I didn't use those terms. I pointed out that when you use the notion of "well established scientific theories" in government educational policies, you run a high risk of corrupting both science and education, and hurting a lot of people in the process, as numerous historical examples show.

The government does not have to determine what's well-established science,

Great! So whether something is "well established science" should therefore be irrelevant to government policy regarding school curricula or school funding; the choice should be up to teachers and parents.

It does have to determine what's religion, to avoid stepping in or on it.

The only reason it is at risk of stepping on religion is because it steps beyond its enumerated powers, for example by trying to influence school curricula. If it stuck to its enumerated powers, there would be no risk of it stepping on religion, and no need to "determine what's religion".

Re:The people

[jwhitener]

I'm not an Athiest (I'm Jewish), but even I don't want religion taught in schools.

I am an atheist, and I DO want religion taught in schools. .

There is a big difference between preaching (or teaching with the goal to convert) and teaching with the goal to describe the history, context, and impact of a religion in the world. Ideally, the class would be titled something like "history of the major religions", with academic research and data used to create the lesson plans, not just "what pastor bob says".

But even if the class ended up "history of christianity", it could be taught as any other history course.

Even if some small conservative school uses the "history of christianity" course to try and preach/convert students, at least it is contained in that course and out of the science class room.