Slashdot Mirror
Alabama Will Require Students To Learn About Evolution, Climate Change
An anonymous reader writes: For the first time, public school students in Alabama will be required to understand evolution, thanks to new curriculum rules behind implemented next year. Teachers in the state will also be required to discuss climate change. Not only did the 40-person, Republican-controlled Board of Education pass the standards unanimously, but nobody even spoke out against them at a board meeting. The new rules say, "The theory of evolution has a role in explaining unity and diversity of life on earth. This theory is substantiated with much direct and indirect evidence. Therefore, this course of study requires our students to understand the principles of the theory of evolution from the perspective of established scientific knowledge. The committee recognizes and appreciates the diverse views associated with the theory of evolution."
So long as they're aware that it is only a theory.
Oh my GOD, hell has finally frozen over.
Intelligent and far seeing Republicans. Wow they're going to torn to shreds by the Bible Belt Brigade.
Small glimmer of hope
Did Hell freeze over?
Lived in Alabama for four years. This represents major progress. However, there's still a long way to go.
Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
there's a god after all?
A long way to go for what? What's your agenda?
This is about the town of Alabama, Massachusetts.
...for something that not only should have been in place already, but is tepid in comparison to how science is taught almost everywhere else around the world.
That's how much the religious zealots have been able to twist the narrative in their favor, to the point where every civilized person breathes a sigh a relief when they AREN'T shoving their creationist mythologies in students' faces and indoctrinating them with dogma. Are we supposed to congratulate Alabama for not being backwards fundamentalists? That's the intellectual equivalent of giving them a medal for promising not to lynch any more black people.
Agenda? To catch up with the rest of civilization.
I read the summary and it didn't say anything about unseasonably cold weather - much less sub-freezing temperatures - in Alabama.
Don't celebrate too much. The lessons will be titled "How Jebus used evolution to make humankind smart enough to vote Republican."
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
The topic of whether it's human-caused or not is so controversial that even mentioning this will probably get my post modded down.
It's controversial to those with an agenda. The rest of us can still maintain a rational discussion about it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
(Using the word 'faith' very loosely here, because after all it's a meme)
;-)
Good to hear on a Monday morning. Bonus points: Alabama! Can we get the rest of the southern states on board next?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I say drop the origin of life topic all together from public education.
THANK GOD!
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Only in America is it newsworthy that there's a potential that students might actually be taught science in school.
For the baffled foreigners reading this: I attended a public school in the US, and read portions of the Bible as part of my English class (Genesis, because it is as commonly referenced as the Greek myths we also read) and my World Religions class. However, in many places (not where I went), Genesis is also presented in Biology classrooms as an authoritative source. US school students have plenty of exposure to the Bible already, but there's a fight over giving them even more exposure, and in a very different context.
Also, despite what you may have heard, prayer is permitted in US public schools. Any student could (and did) pray on their own time as long as it did not disrupt school or create the appearance that the school endorsed their particular beliefs. The fight here is over the right for public schools to endorse particular religions (particularly Christianity), and for students to proselytize and disrupt school.
I knew stepping though that portal was risky but I kind of like this Alabama filled with science education and NASA engineers.
Back in my dimension, we are mainly focused on where to put our 10 commandment monument and the evils of an education lottery.
If I had to guess, some mega business threatened to leave the state unless they started producing a workforce with some semblance of education. But that's just a guess - some monied interest was twisting arms, almost certainly.
I am from Alabama and they taught Evolution 20 years ago when I was in school....
Don't be too quick to celebrate. Only religious people smart enough to realize that evolution contradicts their holy book are against evolution. Maybe this passed because Alabama's religious people are too dumb to see the problem.
.
Of course, there's still this from TFA:
...Textbooks used in Alabama science classes have carried a disclaimer sticker for years stating that evolution is a "controversial theory," not fact, and the new course of study doesn't change the warnings, which were advocated by Christian conservatives....
rewarding luddite states with accolade when they comply with something widely understood and accepted is not remarkable, but it certainly seems to be en-vogue. The real question to ask is what changed? For the uninitiated outside of the US, states like Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, and Florida all boast a distinctly anti-scientific approach to education and public policy. Everything from contraception to carbon emissions, although widely understood, are suddenly a furious haze of confusion and rhetoric when approached by these states. the federal government largely permits the antebellum myred south to engage in wackiness like abstinence only education and bans on the ban on fracking, so theres no external pressure to suddenly decide policy on things like transvaginal ultrasound are morally reprehensible.
but in this case what changed? did the Alabama legislature finally concede to the fear that their children would be laughed out of college and postsecondary educations outside the field of philosophy and religion? or was is pressure from tech and science industries starved for talent and no longer willing to tolerate a legislature that willfully stupefies the state at its most fundamental level? what caused this state to set aside the purile jackassery of sticker disclaimers and alternate theories for a season and consider for a moment the possibility there is no controversy?
Good people go to bed earlier.
Why should a child be allowed to be excluded from basic education? That is tantamount to keeping your child at home and not educating them, which is child abuse.
There is basic science practice and scientific theories that evolve out of it. You teach science, not as a fact but as a process and from that process there is very little variation on a subject like evolution or climate change. You take into account that not all change is human-made and subtract the things we have seen from the things we see now.
Sure there are hypothesis out there that seem outlandish but that doesn't mean they're wrong, they just have not been tested yet. Perhaps we will change our current viewpoint on both evolution and climate change, but it won't be replaced by an entirely different theory just because it doesn't always fit, only built-upon. You don't throw out Newtonian physics because Einstein's Relativity explains more things more accurately.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I grew up in the South, and I don't think I ever heard "evolution" or "natural selection" ever even mentioned in school by a teacher. The closest thing I remember to it was another student asking my middle school biology teacher about evolution once. She basically told us she wouldn't talk about it because she didn't want to lose her job. And that was that. I had no idea how these process even worked until I read about them later and started to understand their importance and implications.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
The board of education is taking a middle course. Their statement says, " "The theory of evolution has a role in explaining unity and diversity of life on earth. This theory is substantiated with much direct and indirect evidence."
By saying the theory has a role, they are saying it is true, but implying that there may also be other factors involved, in particular divine intervention. From what what I understand, this is the position of the Catholic church.
There is another controversy involved here, namely about the age of the universe and the Earth. A significant proportion of Americans hold the Biblical-literalist view that it is only 6,600 years old, with humans and animals created in their present form from the beginning. By supporting Darwin's theory of evolution, they are by implication affirming the conventional view the universe and the Earth were created billions of years ago.
Indeed. Let's make sure to encourage people to think that the Earth is flat and at the center of the universe, and about the theory of phlogiston as a viable physical theory. For diversity of ideas' sake.
See subject: That all said & aside, God created life that evolves to survive different conditions (since God IS perfect).
* Yes, I believe in/worship God...
APK
P.S.=> It only makes sense, given the initial premise that most all believers in faiths worshipping an almighty God (something that powerful must have created the space-time continuum we live in) would hold I'd think... apk
It's just a theory....like the Theory of Gravity or Electronic Theory. And we all know how unreliable and far-fetched those kooky theories are!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I'd like to be the first to welcome Alabama to the 20th Century.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
According to who? Blanket statements that go against a consensus of scientific opinion should really be supported by some citations if you want to be taken remotely seriously.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
FWIW, I went to public school in Alabama and learned about evolution. It wasn't taught as in "but remember kids, this is only a theory" nor did they say "and evolution is fact and I'm failing you if you don't admit that God doesn't exist".
It was just taught. Like things of this nature should be.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Dude, don't waste your time. The concept of "global warming" was so confusing to these people that they kept asking what happened to "the warming" whenever it snowed somewhere. In an effort to make it less confusing the term "global climate change" was coined, but instead of clearing things up for the confused it confused them even further. They're now sure that it's a conspiracy proving that there was no global warming and that the name was changed to reflect that.
There's some levels of stupid that just can't be reasoned with.
2) The ID argument: Life was created by a superintelligent supernatural uncreated designer with supreme powers who, for legal reasons, we can neither confirm nor deny as the Christian God.
Haha! High Five!
You're an idiot. Evolution has been proven if you would only read a little)
FTFY
Also, that could be considered a dangling modifer. What little thing should be read? A little rock? A little prince?
I grew up in the South, and I don't think I ever heard "evolution" or "natural selection" ever even mentioned in school by a teacher. The closest thing I remember to it was another student asking my middle school biology teacher about evolution once. She basically told us she wouldn't talk about it because she didn't want to lose her job. And that was that. I had no idea how these process even worked until I read about them later and started to understand their importance and implications.
I've spent time in the South as well, and I never heard the phrase "natural selection" uttered either. I DID see it play out, however...usually preceded by a "Hey, y'all...WATCH THIS!"
But all kidding aside, you make an excellent point by illustrating exactly how the various forces at work come into play here. This law is a good move, and a step in the right direction for a state that consistently ends up being the butt of jokes because of a stereotypically uneducated (outside of Huntsville) populace. As soon as an idea, concept, or theory is banned...either explicitly as used to be the situation that led up to the Scopes Monkey Trial or implicity, as in the situation you encountered...knowledge slides backwards. Truth is never served by censorship.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
I went to school in Kansas they taught evolution in the 70s so I'm not sure what you are talking about. I do know that every few years a few wack jobs try to get that changed but that they still teach evolution and climate change. Sometimes it's the small crazy groups with the loudest voice that get the most attention doesn't mean they get their way.
When states like Texas are criticized, they have at least been able to say they are better than Alabama and Mississippi. I guess we are not down to Mississippi.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Teaching evolution shouldn't be an issue. I think the standard is getting permission, and if a student/parent isn't comfortable, they don't have to be in the class at the time. Unless they're making it involuntary with no opt-out.
Standard should be it gets taught and if the student/parent is uncomfortable with evidence backed science then they can home school their child. I really have no patience for making special accommodations for people's superstitions. I think Newton's flaming laser sword should apply here.
As for climate change, that's a bit more controversial. There's the issue of whether it's man-made or not, or perhaps in part.
It's only controversial in the minds of those who would prefer it not be true regardless of what the evidence actually shows. Every credible piece of evidence appears to support the thesis that activities of mankind are having substantial and measurable effects. Whether mankind is responsible for 100% or some amount less kind of misses the point. The point is that we appear to be responsible for FAR more than 0% of the recent rise in temperatures and other climatic effects.
I don't know what they mean by, "teachers will be required to address climate change". If it's a discussion, that's fine. If they teach that it's 100% caused by humans, that's a problem. They need to talk about all viewpoints along with the scientific data that indicates a changing climate.
If the evidence shows that it is human caused then that is what should be taught. So far it appears the evidence overwhelmingly supports the thesis that human activity is the source of much of the recent rise in global temperatures and other climatic changes. Personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Science doesn't work on opinion and there are not two sides to every argument. You don't study viewpoints that are unsupported by data.
Not all diversity is good, no. Diversity for diversity's sake is crap; it's the quality of the diverse ideas that count. The Flat Earth idea doesn't need equal time with evolution, for example.
I went to school in Georgia, and while I was in high school my county made national news when they put stickers saying "Evolution is only a theory, blah blah blah" inside the front covers of our science textbooks. My AP Bio class (which included one student who's father is the pastor at a large, prominent Baptist church and was even president of the Southern Baptist Convention) got a pretty good laugh in about it and then 5 minutes later completely forgot about it. Not all of the South is full of ignorant hicks without the capacity for cogent thought and reasoning. Although guns and pickups are both actually pretty awesome.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It must be time to die
The "theory" of evolution isn't just a problem for schools in the south. I remember when I was in High School the teacher only touched on it for a few weeks and even then they kind of danced around its aspects and I grew up in southern Michigan (about 15-20 years ago). I got an earful from a number of other students for understanding and accepting the concept, most dismissed it as ludicrous because they seemed to think that it meant that one day apes suddenly started having modern human babies instead of slow gradual changes (slightly taller, little less hair, little smarter apes in each generation) despite a diagram right in the book depicting the slow changes.
There is a narrative that gets pushed that only conservatives are anti-science, yet if there is a discussion of nuclear power or even acknowledging the nature aspect of the nature vs. nurture debate, GMO foods, etc. suddenly the focus is shifted, refusing that dogma can take many forms.
And in a real sense the liberals claiming the mantle of science has been rather anti-science, patting themselves on the back for merely being able to regurgitate factoids, with no real understanding of the principles involved.
... this wouldn't have happened otherwise.
Did I die and go to heaven?
Weird, I grew up in TN and in my rural high school (450 students, 7-12th grade), we had a nice discussion about evolution. Our teacher did start with "We're going to talk about evolution and I know some of you have religious exemptions from learning this, if so, please go to the library for the next few weeks while we get through the material. I remember only one person left the classroom and was really confused as to how anyone could actually be offended by evolution or science in general (this is also about the time I discovered atheism and had already left my fundamentalist church a year or two prior).
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Crazy thing......in my school, we spent way more time discussing evolution in discussions about current events than in biology class. By the time we got to it in biology, it was like, "That was what everyone was upset about?" Straightforward, not particularly controversial once you get down to it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
To keep things nice and germ free in hospitals, for the last 50 years we've been wiping everything down with Lysol. And for a good 30 to 35 years, that worked pretty well. Then, about 20 or so years ago, it started getting harder to kill everything with Lysol.
Bacteria developed which was Lysol-resistant. Now, how do you suppose that happened? Unicorn-farts?
The irony is that, hospitals, once the cleanest places in the world, are now one of the most bacteria-ridden despite an on-going war to sterilize as much as possible.
Would you like to propose some alternate theory that doesn't utilize evolution to explain what's happening right in front of your eyes? And I mean one that doesn't involve any magic men in the sky who are everywhere and invisible?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
This is the same state described here, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Amazing! I'm wondering if they added something to the drinking water .. or took something away!
No.. the chapter will be titled "Evolution and Global warming, the Democratic plot to have homosexuals take over America."
Silence is a state of mime.
Catch up with the rest of civilization??? How? By forcing people to agree with 'Science'?
Yes.
Or more precisely, your group of uneducated worshippers have declared science is incorrect, yet refuse to publish your critiques in peer reviewed formal academic journals, where science is debated among those capable of understanding the arguments
Thus, having refused to place your objections on the record, and allow them to be subject to peer review by the competent, you have surrendered the field to those who know and thus, it is time to end the charade
You have nothing, and no place left to sell your propaganda.
When they do not agree, let them step into Peer Review in the appropriate fora and prove their case...or let them be forever silent!
We're already giving hundreds of billions to MAKE human caused global climate warming.
It's called the Department of Defense, and it's single task is conquering oil rich nations and protecting the price of oil
Wow, where do you come up with this stuff? Do you actually think that's rational thought? The sole task of the DoD is to protect the price of oil?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I mean, if they are so afraid of not having god be the center of all schooling, can't you get away with saying that Two Plus Two Equals Five 'Cause God?
I mean, if you can't teach science at all because "god"; then how do you teach anything else. Is History class all about how God created the heavens and the earth and the planet is 6000 years old?
It seems to me that you can use that as the basic answer to anything ; "because God". And then scare teachers into accepting that because they don't want to lose their jobs.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
The problem with this is that when you break it down, there are many possible positions on taxation.
For example, I consider myself mostly conservative when it comes to taxation - I believe that the budget needs to be balanced(on average), taxes simplified, etc... I support a 'flat' tax with a large deductible. As such, I found the long-term capital gains tax reduction without limits to be horrible - amounting to a regressive tax system. I feel better now that it's 20%, but it's still half of what it should be(39.6% for the highest tax bracket).
I'd prefer something like you getting a $10k/year deduction for investment income, long term or not, in order to encourage savings, emergency funds, etc...
I don't read AC A human right
This is what an agenda looks like. I don't know why, but whenever countries meet over AGW, the topic always turns to giving billions of dollars from one group to another.
The fact that you don't like some of the proposed solutions does not mean there is not a problem. Go look at the list of the top 100 companies, the largest political donors, etc. and then try to make a cogent argument as to how big bad environmental and/or poverty lobby has some how convinced 1000s of scientists to participate in whatever strange and huge conspiracy you appear to be proposing.
We are releasing millions of years of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere and we are doing it on the time scale of decades. To pretend that will not have consequences because all the solutions are ideologically distasteful is appalling.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
For the first time, public school students in Alabama will be required to understand evolution
They'll be required to hear about it. Whether they understand it or not is an entirely different matter.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
O.K., show me what DOD has done IN BATTLE in the last 20 years that was not about, as Dick Cheney said in his Open Letter to Bill Clinton in 1999 "....protect the soldiers we will place in the area...and a significant portion of the world's oil". i.e. kill Saddam to make the price of oil more compatable with maximum income for the owners of oil stocks such as Dick Cheney
Lots of luck
My wife teaches science in a bible belt state. State requirements are she must teach evolution. Local requirements are she can't talk about it. So she teaches everything about evolution without once using the words evolution or Darwin. It's really not that hard and it keeps everyone happy. She'd rather not have to be on guard, but compared to the other piles of nonsense teachers have to go through, it's no big deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Humans cannot stop climate change.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
if we're gonna ask permission to teach about scientific topics that people may not 'believe' in, then we need to begin asking permission to teach any science at all.
It's science. Belief isn't required. Quite the opposite.
But you want us to believe in the idea that humans are the main cause of climate change?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Tennessee and Georgia, evolution was taught, with the caveat "if you are offended by this, please wait out in the hallway until the end of class"
Only roughly 100 years of science to catch up. Good job, US!
I'm not sure it makes any difference whether it's human-caused. Global warming will proceed and is proceeding, let's start from there.
Learning about "climate change" Unless you live in California, Florida, gulf coast etc... Here in the midwest, we have 4 climate changes Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You're like someone who was frozen in time.....all your conspiracy theories are from over a decade ago. Even the phrasing you use is from back then. Fascinating.
The self-confidence you have in your ignorance hasn't changed, though. Your argument is "I can't think of anything the DoD has done." It's an argument from ignorance. Of course not, if anyone showed you evidence, the cognitive dissonance would force you to disregard it.
Your name calls yourself an "autodidact." Find some new places to teach yourself from, you'll be glad you did.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Well we gave trillions as corporate welfare to oil companies over the years, so billions seems like a bargain.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It's controversial to those with an agenda. The rest of us can still maintain a rational discussion about it.
I was wrong, it appears from this thread that people aren't able to have a rational discussion about this. (or possibly anything)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The fact that you don't like some of the proposed solutions does not mean there is not a problem. Go look at the list of the top 100 companies, the largest political donors, etc. and then try to make a cogent argument as to how big bad environmental and/or poverty lobby has some how convinced 1000s of scientists to participate in whatever strange and huge conspiracy you appear to be proposing.
There's no conspiracy, it's out in the open. This isn't something people are trying to hide.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
No, but you can shoot him and buy an Ox that will drink proper on the trail.
On a side note, what will be call our coming self-directed evolution?
Tennessee and Georgia, evolution was taught, with the caveat "if you are offended by this, please wait out in the hallway until the end of class"
How many kids decided to be offended just so they could screw around in the hall?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I grew up in the South, and I don't think I ever heard "evolution" or "natural selection" ever even mentioned in school by a teacher. The closest thing I remember to it was another student asking my middle school biology teacher about evolution once. She basically told us she wouldn't talk about it because she didn't want to lose her job. And that was that. I had no idea how these process even worked until I read about them later and started to understand their importance and implications.
That's kind of crazy. In the Minnesota public schools we were taught this back in the 80's. I guess it just shows us how different each state can vary on what students are taught.
Nobody is talking about "kill all the zygotes" except you, you logic-impaired . The same chain of so-called "logic" you use there could equally be applied to men's sperm or women's ova; destroy all of them and you won't have any more children either. Yet, mysteriously enough, nobody seems to be calling denunciations down on every girl who ever has her period (wasting an ovum, unfertilized) or every boy who ever has a nocturnal emission (or "wet dream").
Yeah, try again. This time, consider actually thinking a little bit first.
Oh, and yes, we would continue to have oak trees; they live a long time, and they produce acorns many, many times. You'd have to destroy them all *continuously* for the entire fertile lifetime of all the currently-living trees. You could, of course, kill off all the oak trees *much* faster by eliminating all the *water* in the world... but that doesn't mean that water is an oak tree either.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
You are infringing on Ann Coulter's copyrighted ideas.
Not a single one from my class.
Lived in Alabama for four years. This represents major progress. However, there's still a long way to go.
The GOP is learning that educating generations of children to mistrusts science has its drawbacks. The anti-GMO sentiments basically falls in 2 camps. Liberals that mistrust the Corporations involved and Conservatives that mistrust the science involved.
Congratulations for entering the late 19th century!
Yes, there are liberals who have dogmatic positions on those things. But if you look at it from a Republican/Democrat perspective you don't see a lot of prominent Democratic politicians supporting those dogmas in the same way that prominent Republicans do, particularly those running for President who have to contort themselves in absurd ways to avoid offending the party base on evolution and anthropogenic global warming.
Most I see ITT dont understand science at all it seems. Lots of people here holding onto science as truth, fact, and so on in the same way those moronic theists do.
They need to say unto themselves: Science is a process of discovering what is most likely true. Scientific knowledge is what we believe is true based on the evidence in record and our understanding of it. Science is not, and does not, claim to be truth. In order to have truth you must have ALL the evidence in records and a complete understanding of it; We do not have this, on any subject. We only have 'what is good enough to say this might be true'.
We have competing theories in quantum physics that all have evidence behind them. Do this brainless fucks think all these theories are thought to be true and absolute?
Once someone says something is absolute you know they are no longer using logic and have not considered the whole swarm of things that could be at work. They have shown themselves to be the same as the dogmatic shits they rail against.
Republican politicians do not just have to think about the will of the voter. They have to think about the will of the Republican base, because voter appeal won't matter if they don't get on the ballot at all. The republican base is not representative of the population in general, and they are always assessing if candidates are sufficiently devout.
Yes, it's true the Republicans have to think about the will of their base. The really unfortunate fact is that the rightist base has proven to be rather biddable, they'll believe whatever they're told as long as the one doing the telling is a well-known Conservative Icon. Think right-wing talk radio hosts, religious leaders, rising-star politicians, etc. and the websites and online communities that support them. From these sources the Conventional Wisdom of modern American Conservatism is distilled and dispersed to the Red State faithful, who are happy to lap it up. Such Conventional Wisdom is never questioned, alas. So if you're a strategist for the Republican party, all you really need to do is buy yourself an established Icon or two to "fire up" the base, in whatever manner you wish to, and... Ta-da! It's done, they'll believe what you want them to, regardless of any contradictory evidence.
It's not a pretty picture, but that's how it works. Science or reality never even enter the picture. It's the only explanation for why these people still believe in things like tax cuts for the rich stimulating the economy and creating jobs. I mean, they've had something like 20 years to see EXACTLY how ineffective such policies truly are, but Conventional Wisdom still says they work, so expect all the Republican candidates to include them in their platforms. It's pathetic.
But if you look at it from a Republican/Democrat perspective you don't see a lot of prominent Democratic politicians supporting those dogmas in the same way that prominent Republicans do, particularly those running for President who have to contort themselves in absurd ways to avoid offending the party base...
I disagree. I believe I've read on numerous occasions that very prominent Democrats believe there's an almost 30% wage gap between men and women in this country due to sexism. That is objectively false when doing an apples-to-apples comparison instead of comparing the median male to median female incomes.
/. about certain famous people and large demographics (liberal) from (extremely) liberal California who believe that vaccines cause autism.
Not to mention articles posted here on
It's funny you bring up the anti-vaxxers because they are from both sides of the political spectrum and I've heard statements supporting them from some Republicans as well as Democrats.
Why don't you READ about the actual causes, of which there are multiple causes/factor instead of spouting off nonsense to drive your agenda?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Not sure what you are trying to say. By far most scientists in the field agree that we have Anthropogenic Global Warming, like most scientists support evolution over creationism. Some (but mostly not scientists in the field) are still clinging to alternate possible explanations for global warming (like for evolution vs creationism). The Wikipedia link doesn't really say otherwise, but Wikipedia is a really bad source for hot topics like this, where we know there is significant activism and paid spin.
Not sure who you are trying to argue with but I think you are twisting the fact that various scientists theorize that human activity has an impact on the climate but we are not the biggest factor. We could not stop an ice age or warming trend no matter how hard we tried short of using nukes.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Of course the term "climate change" (with the "global" implied) has been in use since at least the 1950's when Gilbert Plass wrote a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change" so it wasn't something coined recently.
I had biology class in a small town in Alabama way back in 1967. My teacher was a very religious lady who was in church every time the door was open, but she taught us about evolution and natural selection. For her it was science and she was teaching a science course. Her beliefs were something she left at the door. We all knew, and most of the class agreed with her beliefs. She was tough as nails and it was hard to make an 'A' in her class. I made straight A's.
I also had her for human physiology class. The final exam had only one question. Name the ten systems in the human body, the organs that make up each system, and the functions of those organs. Simple, huh?
In short, good science teachers will teach science. Personally I see no disagreement between science and religion. One tells you how and the other tells you why.
Why don't you READ about the actual causes, of which there are multiple causes/factor instead of spouting off nonsense to drive your agenda?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What's your point? Scientists know there are multiple interacting causes of climate change. They even directly address that in the latest IPCC report. What they find is that lately the natural causes of climate change are not enough by themselves to account for the change we are seeing and only when you include human influences do you get a complete picture of what's going on.
Earlier you reference the Wikipedia article on Climate Change. The article lists all of the major known causes of climate change. The reason you know about them is because scientists studied the subject. Scientists are still studying all of those causes of climate change. They are measuring them and examining the effects they have. What they find is that when you add up all of the effects, natural and anthropogenic, the natural causes only would by themselves lead you to expect that the Earth should be cooling. But that's not happening. When you add in the anthropogenic causes you get a much better match with the actual climate and its changes. Since the natural causes alone point to cooling that means the anthropogenic causes are causing more than 100% of the warming.
You can believe what you want but if you reject science without good scientific backing for your rejection don't be surprised if you get challenged about it.
Surely you meant to say, "homosexual Muslim ISIS sleeper agents from Mexico"?
Gotta keep up with the times.
Idiocy has no political boundaries.
A lot of that is just contrariness. They do it just to piss people off.
The reason I think being authoritarian is the best approach in certain times is because it objectively is. Let me explain:
I have a close family member who's a cancer survivor. She is a child. She received treatment and she is fine now (more or less).
There are sizable numbers of people who would have not treated her and instead prayed to God. She would have died. That is a fact. What ever else you believe or don't believe that is a fact.
This is not hypothetical. There have been cases where folks with strong religion had their children taken away from them because they choose to "Trust in the Lord".
I know you've got a dozen things to say to my story above about how/why it was OK to be authoritarian in the cases above. But the fact is you're being authoritarian. There is such a thing as an authority. It's possible to be right and it's possible to be wrong.
Then again you might just wash your hands. Sorting out right and wrong is _hard_. It requires real work and real compromises. It's much, much easier to just wash your hands and say "Oh fuck it, I don't want to impose my beliefs". It's especially seductive because it lets you ignore all the real world suffering by telling yourself you'd only make things worse. But that's a half assed cop out that doesn't save any lives.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Have gnu, will travel.
"I had to read history and journal articles on my own to get a real science education. I consider my time in class to have been largely wasted."
Perhaps your time in class was what enabled you to get something out of history and journals.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him enter regional distribution codes in data field 92 to facilitate regression analysis on the back end."
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
So...it was in the meteorology books too?
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Kosovo. No oil. Your hypothesis is falsified.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
I am one. You, sir, are the square root of minus one.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Is being in the first 10k years of an inter-glacial considered to have much of an effect?
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
if we're gonna ask permission to teach about scientific topics that people may not 'believe' in, then we need to begin asking permission to teach any science at all.
It's science.
Belief isn't required.
Quite the opposite.
But you want us to believe in the idea that humans are the main cause of climate change?
No, humans are the main cause of science.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Troo enuf, spelling fonetikaly duz make peeps saund unedicated. If I remember right, Geo. Washington tried to simplify English spelling (actually I don't think I remember right. I'm *sure* someone here will be, er, kind enough to correct me as to who it was).
OTOH, the message was communicated, he knows what an Edelbrock is, can actually work on his truck. Something I wouldn't be surprised was beyond more than a few Slashdotters. Different knowledge domains.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
I grew up in Alabama, and remember well my middle school science books (Birmingham Public School), which mentioned Darwin, evolution, and natural selection. It wasn't a big deal in the 1980s.
There's practicality to it also. Even if someone utterly disagrees with it, you can't deny that it's important to learn evolution if you want to understand biology and maybe someday get a job working with biology (say as a doctor). Denying evolution is seriously going to put a student at a competitive disadvantage. So play some games and treat it like Newtonian physics; we know it's not fully correct but we learn it because we've got to in order to deal with the world and get through the classes, and you need to know it to learn relativistic and quantum physics, and it's a great approximation.
And also don't forget that both Republican and Democratic parties are conglomerates of strange bedfellows. There is the Republican wing that is all about economics and is pro-business, and the wing that is pro-American exceptionalism, and so forth. Those wings, especially in Alabama, are probably tired of being typecast as uneducated people who can't compete in the world. (don't forget the big push for science during the cold war, so we could stay ahead of the godless commies)
Stop reading and watching LGBT media, then, as those are the only places which could cause the "problem" you are experiencing. Or just grow up. Either would work, really.
Weird, right? People not trying to hide scientific knowledge? Bizarre!
Technically I only labeled those trying to push an agenda as irrational.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You gotta watch the various channels of the God-crazy loonies on YouTube now, I bet they'll go apeshit over this!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Spontaneous gene mutations made the different life forms. No theory is needed for that, just observation. Less than one percent of the existing life forms exist because of "survival of the fittest".
Dogma can indeed take many forms, and there's idiotic and antiscientific beliefs all over every political spectrum. However, I haven't noticed liberals trying to keep elementary science out of the schools. Having stupid ideas about the desirability of nuclear power is better than having stupid ideas about what schoolkids should be taught in science class.
As far as regurgitating factoids, there is an advantage to normally regurgitating correct factoids. Somebody who believes that AGW is going on for some stupid reason is better to have around than one who believes it isn't happening for some stupid reason.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
FWIW, I went to public school in Alabama and learned about evolution. It wasn't taught as in "but remember kids, this is only a theory" nor did they say "and evolution is fact and I'm failing you if you don't admit that God doesn't exist".
It was just taught. Like things of this nature should be.
My guess is that it depends on the school district, school principal, local PTA etc. You bring up an excellent point (or remind me of one.) It's pretty shitty to disparage a whole state, or the entire south, or all conservatives because some people are idiots. I know I'm stating the obvious, but "my team" can be pretty shitty to "the other team" and it gets embarrassing. Don't get me wrong, their are some real assholes on "the other team." But I'm not sure that being just as big of assholes helps out "our team."
P.S. I can still be an asshole. I'm working on it.
P.P.S. I don't mean to imply you are on either team, I'm just hijacking your comment and avoiding work.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Is a 16 year old kid capable of denying treatment? What about 13? 10? 7? Where do you draw the line, especially when it's a completely treatable illness that kills if left untreated?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Freedom of religion does not protect parents from neglecting their children. There is plenty of precedence about that.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Its good that a scientific fact such as evolution is learned at school. Evolution is a scientific fact. There is no scientist that disagrees with it. The only people who disagree with it are radical religious people because it contradicts with their religion. Climate change is something totally different. That is if with that they mean man made global warming. Because climate change is normal, it has always been changing (ice ages, warm periods). Whether the earth is heating upp is up to debate. Scientists disagree about this. The last 15 years it has not gotten any warmer. Even among scientists who believe that there is a warming they disagree in the cause. Whether its natural or there is a human cause. Of those that believe there is a human factor they disagree how big the human factor is. From slightly helping a natural phenomenon to causing in. Global warming believers ignore natural factors such as the activity of the sun. Or other facts. Facts are that humans produce less then 4% of all CO2. CO2 has never driven climate in the past. In fact, information from ice drills proved that there was a link between climate and CO2 but its the other way around. When the temperature rises CO2 rises, when the temperature drops CO2 levels drop. But CO2 lags behind 500 years. This is because oceans let go CO2 when they heat and take it in when they cool down. But they take a very long time to heat or cool.
Depends on what exactly is being said.
Just like Gravity is a fact, and generally speaking "what goes up, must come down" is a fact. However once you get into some of the finer details it may be a bit more complicated than that and more theoretical. It is a big topic.
Evolution is a fact (but also a big topic), but again, once you get into some really specific areas it is more of a theory. However I'm pretty confident whatever overview evolution is given in grade school should be considered fact, not theory. Once the little buggers go to higher education, and start looking at the limits of our understanding of evolution, then they can call it theory. However in order to do that they need a basic understanding of the known facts...
Step 1: Get Donald Trump elected as President
Step 2: ???
Step 3: PROFIT!!!
Actually, it does.
http://childrenshealthcare.org...
First google result lists many, many religious exceptions regarding children and healthcare. See all those laws which establish minimum standards for the care of children, with a big glaring 'unless your religion says otherwise' exception?
Then go down to section B. In many states, it is indeed a religious right to neglect the medical needs of children. Does your child have, say, diabeties, which will certainly be fatal if untreated? Then it's abuse to refuse to seek medical treatment, unless you happen to be one of those wackos who refuses all medicine on religious grounds, in which case you get special exception. See Madeline Newmann for a famous case. Last I heard the parents were praying for her resurrection. Even when she was suffering seizures the parents refused to violate their religion by calling a doctor, and only prayed for healing.
In five states, there's a religious exception of some form that can cover murder. It's pretty rare that it actually gets used, but it covers situations like death during exorcism attempts. You can actually torture your child to death and then get away with it, if you did so for religious reasons. If you didn't intend for them to actually die.
Prince v. Massachusetts is clear: Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.
Oregon v. Smith likewise establishes that certain laws, specifically in regards to child welfare, should be followed.
The fact that many judiciaries have neglected or are working around the Supreme Court decision(s) doesn't make it legal if it were actually tested.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com