Slashdot Mirror
2016's First Batch of Anti-Science Education Bills Arrive In Oklahoma (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: It's only January and we're already seeing the first anti-science education bills of 2016 going through the Oklahoma legislature. The state's lawmakers fight over this every year, and it looks like this year won't be any different. "The Senate version of the bill (PDF) is by State Senator Josh Brecheen, a Republican. It is the fifth year in a row he's introduced a science education bill after announcing he wanted 'every publicly funded Oklahoma school to teach the debate of creation vs. evolution.' This year's version omits any mention of specific areas of science that could be controversial. Instead, it simply prohibits any educational official from blocking a teacher who wanted to discuss the 'strengths and weaknesses' of scientific theories.
The one introduced in the Oklahoma House (PDF) is more traditional. Billed as a 'Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act' (because freedom!), it spells out a whole host of areas of science its author doesn't like: 'The Legislature further finds that the teaching of some scientific concepts including but not limited to premises in the areas of biology, chemistry, meteorology, bioethics, and physics can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on some subjects such as, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.'"
The one introduced in the Oklahoma House (PDF) is more traditional. Billed as a 'Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act' (because freedom!), it spells out a whole host of areas of science its author doesn't like: 'The Legislature further finds that the teaching of some scientific concepts including but not limited to premises in the areas of biology, chemistry, meteorology, bioethics, and physics can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on some subjects such as, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.'"
Why don't we add an amendment to this law saying that anyone in violation will be considered to be a witch and burned at the stake accordingly.
This must be why Oklahoma is such an economic powerhouse. Oh wait, turns out they are the dead last state in GDP. I'm sure these progressive laws had nothing to do with that, not a thing.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
This year's version omits any mention of specific areas of science that could be controversial. Instead, it simply prohibits any educational official from blocking a teacher who wanted to discuss the 'strengths and weaknesses' of scientific theories
Sounds good to me. I'm sure there a still a few flaws or mechanisms we don't understand in theories like evolution, or the theory of gravity, and those should be pointed out and discussed to show that science is always evolving. And of course it can sometimes be difficult to tie everything together in string theory (see what I did there?). Too bad for the good Senator though that creationism isn't considered a scientific theory.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
This is an amateurish approach. If you really want to change how a subject is taught, you go through the curriculum departments of the school districts. Of course, for that to work you have to require teachers to put in training hours, and you might have to pay them for that time.
If a school dislikes how a science teacher doesn't teach science, they can find any number of reasons to grade that teacher as underperforming, and that teacher won't advance in pay. It will be impossible to prove that it was because the administrator took punitive action against a creationst teacher if the administrator plays his or her card close to the chest and doesn't even discuss the religious issues when doing the grading or when the controversy rears it's ugly head.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
And here I was thinking that the whole thing about Oklahoma being backwards was a myth.
Yeah, right. This is about allowing stuff which has no resemblance to be presented as science.
Teach your religion in your church. Stop trying to raise kids who can't distinguish facts and science from personal belief and wishful thinking.
This is just thinly veiled attempts at putting religious beliefs into school as if they are facts.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Why? Because too many people think that there is one, and explaining why evolution is right and ID/creationism is bunk is a Good Thing.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Can anyone explain to me how discussing the strengths and weaknesses of a theory is anti-science? Particularly in light of part D which states, "This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on some subjects such as, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning
Let me help you, the good teachers of Oklahoma. Just present the subjects as they are and let them do the screaming.
With education like this, one is assured a steady stream of H1B Visas and Americans working at McDonald's...
As long as they teach the Pastafarian creation story.
There's a point when people's beliefs shouldn't be respected. Years ago, a Fundie kook in my county got this shit passed and the county had to spend thousands and thousands of dollars to get the Creationist bullshit out via the court system.
And we also need to stop defending Evolution based on their arguments. They use nonscientific arguments that aren't based on fact and actually distorts the facts. I saw an Creationist kook equate evolution with adaptation - like lifting weights and getting bigger muscles are the same thing as 'evolving'.
And as Dawkins points out, debating them is pointless.
They need to be ignored. That's all. Trying to suppress them only works into their world view that they are being oppressed and persecuted. They are delusional people and should be treated as such: ignored when we can.
When they push this crap, it should be defeated immediately cast aside as being nonsense and people like State Senator Josh Brecheen should be ridiculed and made fun of for being a superstitious, ignorant, delusional and possibly mentally ill person.
Religion in this country is holding us back. It is turning our country into a bunch of scientifically illiterate people's and the rest of the World is eating our lunch - I meant that in the present tense.
They offer symbolic solutions to problems that are too complex for the voters to understand. This requires that they tell lies in order to buy votes. After the election, they do a whole lot of nothing effective because being effective entails risk which is dangerous to their careers. This means that voters are always choosing lies, and this selects for the liars who show up to tell them. Democracy is a failure and always has been.
In a way, Oklahoma , is digging its own grave. No teacher worth his salt will be able to teach the wisdom of science in such a restrictive atmosphere.
The kids will suffer while growing up with faerie tales in a fog of ignorance and intolerance. Sad really.
I would really like to believe that Democrats are just as stupid as Republicans. I don't see any reason why there would be a monopoly on stupid. And I certainly have seen lots of stupid democrats individually, And yet, my unscientific impression is that whenever something truly idiotic tries to become law there a preponderace of republicans backing it. How can this possibly occur? Same is true with the presidential race.
What is the mechanism that causes this lack of collective filtration for logic in one party but not the other.
Or am I mistaken? does the internet selectively bring me stories of republican idiocy and remove the democratic party stunts? If so this would explain a lot of why people are so angry and polarized these days.
I'm not talking about subjective disagreement. it's okay for people to disagree on some things. But legislating science? surely reasonable people in both parties would recognize the pattern here.
are beholden to politics. Don't like it? Get the government out of schools.
Teachers can teach that evolution was put into motion when Gil Gerard, star of the television series Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, used a time machine, went back and ejaculated into the primordial ooze.
I am of the belief that we were created by GOD, but evolved over time.
Right because feminists oppose teaching biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning...try again Potsy....
You haven't gotten laid in a very, very long time, have you?
I don't respond to AC's.
The great thing about science is that it doesn't care what you believe in. If you don't believe in gravity and jump off of a tall building, you will still splatter when you hit the ground. By the way, there is no such thing as anti-science, only pro-ignorance. Let's call it for what it really is.
What do they have against Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World"?
Oh. It's the whole stem cell research debate...aka, the tired old abortion debate but with sexier, scarier, sciencey language. 'nuff said.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
There is another state religion that denies evolution. This religion is being taught in all public schools. This is so because it is also uniformly taught in higher education. It forms the central dogma of what are called "the social sciences". As anti-science, this religion is far more damaging than the "dinosaurs and man walked side by side" theocrats because it actually informs most of what we call "public policy" at the Federal level. It is exemplified by (though hardly limited to) the widely praised writings of Harvard professors Richard "Dick" Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould who, together with other fellow travelers, attempted to get Edward O. Wilson ejected from Harvard because Wilson dared posit evolution might apply to signiicant aspects of human social behavior, as well as to that of other organisms.
Those who weren't around in the late 1970's watching all this might not be aware of exactly how virulent and organized -- let alone wrong-headed -- the attacks were.
But one thing is for certain: The dogma that human biodiversity is an insignificant consideration in the social sciences is under increasing attack by the scientific evidence and, at the same time, it is ever more influential on public policy.
So-called "creationism" as theocratic anti-science threat is a red-herring.
Seastead this.
Creation: does not make falsifiable predictions (since for every lack of evidence you can always claim that "the creator decided not to do it that way" -> is no scientific theory
Evolution: makes falsifiable predictions -> is a scientific theory.
Discussion over.
It would be nice if some teacher could teach about the "controversy" and explain that the scientific method was about hypothesis test and there is none of that in the intelligent design. But I'm sure that such a teacher would be fired and somehow the law that protects teaching about the controversy wouldn't protect them. Why is it that we have a whole party of anti-science people?
Here's where I object to this type to "educational reform".
If we allow this charade to come to its logical conclusion, in a couple of decades, a large percentage of Oklahomans will become largely unemployable in any capacity past menial labor. And if we accept that the demand for menial labor is going to steadily decrease, this leaves many of these people relegated the welfare ranks, ironically where the Republicans would prefer to let them starve.
This means that "we" (the larger SlashDot community) will eventually have to pay to carry these "miseducated" Americans or make the judgment call to let them get by on their own, something that I would be reticent to do.
Add to that, the fact that the Republicans will refuse to accept any responsibility for this catastrophe or will hand us the line that this was done by the old Republican Party and that the new, improved Republicans would never have enacted this type of legislation. Alternately, maybe they'll simply claim it was the liberal media that caused the problem, seeing as it would be hard to pin this on terrorism, drugs, or pornography.
As a Texan ex-pat (not from Texas), are you shitting me? Can we go annex them?
If we had a voucher system in my Bible Belt area, EVERY school would be teaching bible nonsense thereby negating the usefulness of vouchers.
We need a Federally controlled and funded school system that teaches a secular curriculum that has natural science requirements.
Or moron. Take your pick.
A froth of bigots ranting straw man arguments; grossly misrepresenting what the legislation clearly says.
If evolution is a robust as the Law of Gravity, what are you worried about?
If you actually believe that, you've gotten caught up in propaganda from exceptionally stupid reactionaries.
Oklahoma is 29th in state GDP.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
One of the best things about science is that, while we accept things "as they appear to be" and formulate theories about why that is, and what the mechanisms are that govern what we see, those theories are continually up for examination and re-examination in light of new evidence that is not explained by the existing theory. If the new evidence can be independently verified, and the results replicated, then the theory can be adjusted.
So, by (at least as I read it based on the summary) allowing teachers and students the possibility to discuss evolution versus creationism, to look with a critical eye at the evidence and find (NOT make) new evidence, to draw conclusions and either reinforce existing theories (by concluding that the evidence supports them) or contradict existing theories and propose new ones (because the evidence does not support the existing theories), this approach appears at first glance to be a very scientific approach to the debate.
However, that will "obviously"* not be the case. The goal is almost certainly not to allow a free and open discussion, but to push an agenda by only acknowledging evidence that supports the agenda, with the rationale that the time allotted for the debate is insufficient to consider all the evidence, so we have to pick and choose.
* Why do I say "obviously"? Partly because my (limited) experience of Oklahoma is of a state dominated by the conservative religious Right, who would mostly rather give a blow-job to Satan than admit that evolution is right and they are descended from monkeys; and partly because the people of Oklahoma are more concerned with where their next pay check is coming from than they are concerned with where THEY came from (not unlike many other parts of the world, though).
The basic approach of most religions is to say "come to us, we have the answers to all your questions", and most religious authority figures really dislike the fact that science ("we are still looking for the answers to all our questions, but we have some interesting answers to some of your questions already") comes up with answers that disagree with their religious doctrine and proof to support those answers, instead of relying on peoples' faith in the "right" religious answer.
Let's assume for a moment, that this thing about feminism is true (and there's some truth to it in my opinion).
How does that justify that some Christians (it's certainly not all of them) are trying to undermine many fields of the hard sciences?
This is nothing but pointing fingers: Look mom! They do it to! Why are you punishing me? Punish them first!
OP is quasi-correct.
Science, by definition, is an analytical tool which is based on constant questioning and testing with the goal of disproving proposals (too lazy to reserach the plural of hypothesis...) As with any tool, it has a limited scope of applicability.
It is impossible to ultimately prove or disprove anything without complete, ultimate knowledge of all that was, is, and will ever be. Given that is impossible, science is properly viewed as a constantly fluctuating qualifier component of probability.
The word "science" is frequently misused as a dogmatic bludgeon, most obvious lately by the political left's AGW dogma; "settled science." Science is outside the realm of personal opinion.
It is impossible to definitively prove the existence or non-existence of the ultimate diety unless situations change (return of Christ, for example.) As science developed, many physical relationships of matter were codified, true. As scientific knowledge advances, the perceive probability of life on Earth spontaneously occurring has diminished greatly
The real issue is the human propensity for dogma. People who demand Darwinist macro evolution theory is fact and religious cults are similar. They both selectively choose which "facts" they will accept and which they will disregard. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. Just a Piltdown Man was a fraud, so are many of the claims used to promote evolution. In this case, I mean MACRO evolution. Charles Darwin was very clear about this weakness of his theory and gave examples which disqualified the theory. The dogmatic way in which proponents of macro evolution demand this old theory is ultimate truth betray themselves as acting with complete disregard for science. Scientific discovery did not stop 150 years ago. What seemed plausible then, is now rendered nearly impossible with current knowledge.
As an example from the Christian realm, the Bible includes what appear to be mutually exclusive direct instructions from God to both test all things and not to doubt God.
If there is a God, you'll know at some point...or you won't.
If there is not a God, you'll never know.
Why do we allow our public servants to go so far down these paths? Just shoot the asshole!
We probably need some of both. Period. Now why do elected Republicans push these bills? Perhaps religious lobbies that fund their campaigns to increase church-going numbers? It could be as simple as that...Money. Do they actually believe in these things? Maybe...maybe not. Their job puts food on the table for their family, so whatever it takes to make that happen, they'll do that. If that means accepting money from the corporate class to put a bill on the table, they'll do it. Once it is on the table, the Political Debate will likely weed out the nut-job bills, right? Not if everyone debating and voting are in the exact same put-food-on-the-table position. Assuming the bill gets passed, its out the hands and out of their thoughts...and on the people it affects.
When the bill gets implemented/enforced, the people it actually affects finally start to notice. They didn't notice before because the public access channels are boring to watch. Now, people start to complain, and maybe a fraction of that reaches the actual political officials. Some of these officials actually react, if they care. The complaining has to reach a critical mass before it becomes a public debate. A wanna-be politician jumps on that wagon, making promises along the way, in order to get elected during the next cycle. He/she may or may not be elected, and if elected, may or may not fulfill those promises. That takes years. Meanwhile, the affected people that didn't take notice are none the wiser but still vote and are now potentially influenced by a bill that was supposed to be weeded out by the elected politician, whom, hopefully, knew better to begin with.
Once the politician chooses personal priorities over protecting and improving the lives of his/her constituents, they are committing malpractice. Too bad you cannot disbar the politician.
The sorting hat is just putting these people in Slytherin.
Google "Nixon's southern strategy" for some insight on this sorting hat. over the last century the parties have nearly flip-flopped in role. It used to be that the party that became the Democrats were the party of the "evil" southern slave holders and republicans, the party of abe lincoln, were busting that up. This continued through reconstruction. Then there came a gradual flipflop culminating in FDR amd the rise of a liberal dominated government. But even their the south was still democratic. It was Nixon who set the stage to flip the south to the republicans and chose his platform accordingly. THe democratic party went into decline as there was an anti-liberal backlash against the vision of humphrey and mondale. The Democrats didn't recover until clinton, when the party swung the party away from liberal and to the center. Or to be more correctly, this change happened in that era, and clinton rode the wave.
So people do sort themselves regionally. The parties that adopt those regions behave like them. the platforms shift accordingly.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
If people want to live in Oklahomastan, more power to them. Just another place on the map for me to avoid. Obviously having a functional brain means I have zero in-common with these folks, and I don't like being around people I have nothing in common with either way. It's annoying-to-aggravating on interaction scale, so who cares what they do. US is headed for balkanisation anyway. It will be hilarious once the smarter states decide they are tired of subsidizing the boonies. I don't enjoy having 45% Tax taken out of my bonus, just so most of the money can be sent to places that hate me.
It has been used and abused so much, it's become meaningless kind of like the sign on front gate of that horrible place, "work sets you free." (yeah, godwins law here. didn't RTFA).
mfwright@batnet.com
Science is obviously not a religion, but some of the worst religious people like to claim it is.
You're either clueless or a troll. Either way, you have a lot of self-improvement to do before you go out in public again.
Thanks for including links to actual bill legislation in you submission, Anonymous Submitter. Being Slashdot and all, I predict very few will read the proposed law before getting their rant on, but at least it gives opportunity for some cogent discourse.
Schools should now teach De-Evolution, the process of becoming a politician.
Here's the problem.
When creationists do after the theory of evolution, they're saying "your science is wrong, because we believe it's wrong."
And while you certainly can attack science that way, as far as the scientists are concerned, that's not a valid argument.
It would be like someone saying "The moon is made of cheese." The logical reply to that is "No, it isn't. We've sent men to the moon. They've brought back moon rocks, which surprisingly, aren't cheese."
But that doesn't work, does it? That person will still insist that the moon is made of cheese, or that the earth is flat, or that they don't believe in that some of science because of their religion or whatever.
Real scientists accept the possibility that they could be wrong. That's part of science. That wonderful moment of "Whoa, that's interesting" when something doesn't go as the models and theories predicted and you try and find out why.
Religion is the exact opposite. If you don't believe the same way, you're wrong. Depending on how fervently they believe, the response to that "wrongness" differs. Look at all the religious wars we've had over that sort of thing for proof of that.
So, excuse the hell out of me for not wanting non-science in my science.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
There's no real monopoly on truth in science. There's no 'one' science book, that declares itself as some kind of absolute truth, that comes from an infallible, transcendent being. In fact it must allow self-criticism, which is one of the foundations of science. Anyone can challenge the status quo in science, if they have tangible evidence and logic backing up their claims.
No. 30th. Ahead of Utah. Ya know who is last? Socialist Bernie Sanders' state of Vermont. If you have ever been to Tulsa or OKC you will see very vibrant economies. People actually have children there. Can Oklahoma's schools be any worse than the politically correct hellholes for schools on the East Coast?
"it simply prohibits any educational official from blocking a teacher who wanted to discuss the 'strengths and weaknesses' of scientific theories"
Because any questioning of the Church of Science is ANTI SCIENCE? F'king retards.
Maybe it's just me, but I kind of like that they are teaching both nearly contradicting sides of these topics. I think, in a rare moment of idealism for myself, that it encourages a more flexible mind compared to this dogmatic "This is how it is or else you're some dumb redneck" ad-hominum BS that most "intellectuals" preach everywhere they go. The scientific method requires us to prove the same thing, over and over and over again, it doesn't matter that you think of it as a waste of time, that's how it has always been. How are you going to motivate people to experiment when you just say "Don't bother, we already know the answer. Look it up in your textbook."? You can't. In some ways it's even better that we are starting with stuff that is easily debunkable, that allows their minds to build momentum. It allows them to build confidence by actually achieving something for a change. I don't even care that they then have to deal with the pinheads that are going to tell them they are wrong, because dealing with those people diplomatically is yet another life lesson to learn.
God created the evolution. End of history
Social constructionism is a sentral doctrine of second wave feminism, and it is not compatible with evolution. Social constructionism essentially denies that any aspect of human behavior is biologically determined. Every aspect of behavior, is socially learned or constructed. This is obviously not compatible with what we know about evolution. Feminists also deny evolutionary psychology.
Not that long ago. Tell your mom I'm sorry about the crabs.
Read up on social constructionism, and tell me how the hell this doctrine is compatible with evolution.
I support criticizing creationists, and creationism has no place in school. But this is not the most severe case of antiscience in the education system. Feminism is, without a doubt.
Technically true, but also utterly irrelevant here.
How is it irrelevant? We are discussing antiscience being tought in our schools. At least non religuous people pretty much know creationism is nonsense, but not a lot of people realise that feminism is a larger source of antiscience than creationists are, and worse, people will accept it as fact far easier becuase criticizing feminism is taboo. My post immidiately got modded as a Troll. Why do you think that is?
Insert religion bashing here.
Whether it's evangelical christians, muslims, or proponents of 'social justice', when science gets in the way, it's demonized. We're still in the dark ages.
I may not even disagree with your opinion, but don't spout incorrect information. Oklahoma isn't even in the bottom 10 states, by GDP.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
According to the summary, we are discussing anti-science that is affecting hard science classes like biology or physics. And while many feminist studies follow a similar pattern of not being falsifiable, did they actually make it into hard science classes, like biology, physics or similar things?
Let them pass this silly law, then sue them demanding equal time for the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory of creation and all of the hundreds of other creation myths. We have constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, so not giving equal time to EVERY creation myth is a violation of the constitution!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
and of religion even I see this shit as fucking stupid... of course being an engineer may skew my view, but I don't see, and never have, faith and science as exclusive to one another. but hey according to these people I'm a heretic I suppose....
Yes! They are being tought as fact in universities. You think womens studies faculties don't consider these doctrines to be as true the harder sciences? On the contrary, they believe them to be more true than the doctrines of the hard sciences. They believe that their method of soft learning leads to a better understanding of reality. I'm not making this up. Read Christina Hoff Sommers books.
The point being that unlike creationism, which gets regularly panned and ridiculed and criticized, feminism gets taught without criticism or even skepticism, and consequently its doctrines are far more entrenched in society and particularly in academia. At least there is a debate over creationism. There is no debate over the scientific validity of feminist theory.
And Detroit is an example of modern day liberal values applied.
Which is why party politics is bullshit.
Translation: no.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
We're not talking about the secondary eduction system. This is more about elementary and high school.
I know that you're not making this up and I actually agree with Summers on many issues, as I've experienced some of those myself, when I have to think back to the times when I was in kindergarten.
But these ideologies have not infiltrated science classes like biology, where they actively cast doubt on things like evolution. That's what this is about. That hijacked feminist theories are not getting enough sh*t, doesn't change that Creationism kind of deserves all the sh*t it gets.
Since neither creation nor evolution qualify as science, but rely on faith and supposition, I think it is a good thing to present both viewpoints.
Seems to me that allowing teachers to teach about the DEBATE of creationism vs. evolution is a good thing... And is anyone in support of teachers being BLOCKED from discussing the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories? Scientific theories are so frail they can't be DISCUSSED, they must be taught as absolutes?
Seems to me that allowing debate and discussion is fine, it puts no theory above another, and by calling this "anti-education" is the original poster of a mindset that teaching something as innocuous as the movie "Inherit The Wind" is bad? That discussing the strengths and weaknesses of, say, string theory SHOULD be prohibited?
Ken
You claim to support the scientific method, yet you suggest it's wrong for others to suggest theories that differ from your preferred ones.
I don't think any biologist would object to an alternative theory. The problem is that "Creation," even if you decorate it with "-ism" or call it "Creation science," is not a theory. It's just a statement that "what is, is, because God." It is perfectly compatible with the creation story for tall parents to have tall children. It is perfectly compatible with the creation story for all pigeons to turn into pink unicorns tomorrow morning.
It's like the scientists were building a bridge based on some beautiful blueprints, and a creationist came running up with Beethoven's 9th, saying "This is much more beautiful, and we should use it to build the bridge." Some people would laugh and say you can't build a bridge from a symphony, regardless of how beautiful it is, and then we're off on a tangent of whether the blueprints or the symphony is more beautiful, and we should really teach the controversy.
You can't build a bridge from Beethoven, and you can't build a theory of creation.
You're using the absurd oversimplification that:
1. Second wave feminism recognises that behaviour has strong social influences
2. That means biliogy is irrelevant!
3. So it says evolution is worng
4. Ergo fiminism says evolution is wrong so it must be wrong in its entirety!
To deny that behaviour has a strong biological basis is silly. To deny that it also has a strong social bsais is equally silly.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm not denying social influences. I'm not claiming it's just one or the other, feminists are. The doctrine of social constructionism is sentral to second wave feminism, and it is not compatible with what we know about evolution. Think about it; if you acknowledge that biology has an influence on priorities and choices, then doesn't that explain the wage gap? Doesn't that offer a more plausible explanation of the data, than a mystical patriarchy magically convincing women to make bad choices with patriarchal culture? Apply Occams Razor.
Feminists will also vehemently deny evolutionary psychology, for obvious argument breaking reasons. It's not uncommon for feminists and leftists to view EP as a pseudoscience.
What is the scientific data that would lead to a theory that the earth is 6k years old?
I'm not claiming it's just one or the other, feminists are.
No you're applying the most extreme possible view falsely to all feminists (or all second wave ones), then using your false assumptions to dismiss them entirely.
Think about it; if you acknowledge that biology has an influence on priorities and choices, then doesn't that explain the wage gap?
No, that doesn't follow. There are a hige variety of influences, both biological and social. Merely saying "this is a plausible reason so it's true" is beyond silly.
Doesn't that offer a more plausible explanation of the data
Than the fact that women have until recently been demonstrably excluded from jobs, education and so on and so forth?
There's almost certainly many contributing factors to the wage gap. Pretending that none of recent history exists means you're willfully ignorant and simply want to have your own pet theories confirmed regardless of any actual evidence.
Feminists will also vehemently deny evolutionary psychology
Most of what passes for evopsych on the internet are sexist (amazingly both derogatory towards men and women) just-so stories. That's not science.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Feminists will also vehemently deny evolutionary psychology
Most of what passes for evopsych on the internet are sexist (amazingly both derogatory towards men and women) just-so stories. That's not science.
Thanks for proving my point.
Here is an example of the kind of anti science feminism is all about. This is about Rebecca Watson, a very popular youtuber and prominent feminist, not some marginal voice of a small minority. This is mainstream second wave feminism.
http://www.skepticink.com/incr...
why not both?
If creationism wants equal footing in schools it should be held to a few standards:
1). Needs to have testable, provable and repeatable experiments.
2) It needs to be defended from multiple sources, as in you can't use the bible to defend it.
3) It needs to be taught with no religious overtone.
Creationism is a view held by the uneducated and the demented, when your entire theory is: "God did it", you've failed at all costs to provide anyone with a theory or even rational thought, and this is why it doesn't belong in schools.
Well it's good to see "all evo psych is true" is an axiom of yours. That's a basically the same as religious blind faith.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
We agree then. I'm not trying to engage in whataboutism here, but rational people should be way more outraged that feminism has largely succeeded at what creationism is trying to accomplish.
American Legislative Exchange Council (A.L.E.C.)
Man, I hope I can find a job outside this backward-looking clusterf k of a state soon.
If we are going to teach Creationism in science classes--something that I am against--then we should require that it be taught accurately, which means that both creation stories in the Bible should be taught.
In Genesis 1, God creates the oceans, fishes, animals, then man. In Genesis 2, God creates the man, then the animals.
If we must teach Creationism in the classroom, then make sure to insist that the Creation Stories are taught.
Straw man. When did I say that? You obviously do not consider evolutionary psychology to be a legitimate science, and now youre trying to use a straw man to argue all/none always/never. You're the one talking in binary terms, not me.
Did you see this yet? Rebecca Watson, a prominent mainstream feminist who regularly speaks at conferences? Hardly some radical outlier.
http://www.skepticink.com/incr...
My post immidiately got modded as a Troll. Why do you think that is?
There is one obvious explanation...
Required reading for internet skeptics
What does it tell you about a political ideology, that it defends itself against criticism in this manner? Not with counter arguments and evidence, but with accusations of bigot, virgin, and troll.
"It is the fifth year in a row he's introduced a science education bill after announcing he wanted 'every publicly funded Oklahoma school to teach the debate of creation vs. evolution.' "
I think the senator would not be happy with the results if they actually did this. Imagine if, instead of teaching evolution as a dogma, they discussed the many different lines of evidence that led scientists to their current conclusions about evolution. Imagine discussing the many puzzling questions in biology for which creationism has no answer, but which evolutionary theory resolves. Imagine a vigorous discussion of epistemology and the scientific method.
I can't think of a better way of debunking creationism.
First, the Oklahoma Budget is a hundred and some million short, so they cut about $60 million out of the schools. They cut meal programs, STEM programs, arts (always. They cut those even when money falls out of the ceiling). Probably cut Science too, making the whole bill moot.
But one thing they DIDN'T cut is administrative salaries. Administrative salaries account for 90% of salaries in Oklahoma schools. This SHOULD be about 5%. But Oklahoma, along with pretty much every other state has bolstered the useless overhead administration in education by a factor of many hundreds over the last 30 years. There are some school districts where the administrator to teacher ratio is higher than 1:1. There is literally more than one administrator per classroom (of course, they never set foot in a classroom).
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Trotskyite neocons. I can't parse that one. could you explain. (yes I know about trotsky).
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Your troll mod has nothing to do with ideology, or criticism of the same. At least, even if that was what motivated the moderator, it's a perfectly valid mod on other, far more legitimate, grounds.
Required reading for internet skeptics
It's irrelevant because it's not really about anti science, it's about anti christianity.
Um, glossing over the fact that 'SJW' is a meaningless reductionist term used by idiots, it really doesn't get any more 'SJW' than passing Trojan Horse laws to squeeze your point of view back into schools / workplaces after the rest of us (including the supreme court) all agreed it doesn't belong there, all the while screaming persecution when you are in fact the aggressor and crying suppression when suppression is precisely what you are trying to achieve.
Being as how you felt the need to self-define the term 'SJW' right before you wielded it axiom-like to attack another person's opinion in an epic-level attempt at a strawman, I really don't see how it is any less a childish insult than 'turd burglar' (it is certainly less funny). Taking a fake word, defining it, ascribing it to another person, then using it as a basis for attacking them all in the same sentence is such a magnificent fallacy I'm not even sure it has a name, since they probably assumed nobody would be stupid enough to attempt it. Oh wait - that's pretty much exactly what happens every time somebody drags out the Bible in a non-theological argument. I guess we know where you learned this particular style of 'reasoning'. Thank you for bringing to this discussion a very real, tangible example of the damage that can be caused by feeding irrational garbage to children as fact.
Isn't that called de-evolution?
Bunch of fuckin' oxymorons.
What are these legitimate reasons?
You obviously do not consider evolutionary psychology to be a legitimate science
Well that proves you didn't read what I wrote.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
No we don't! Even though his wife is trying to remain 'Fair and Balanced" doesn't mean she actually is. Most people simply can't be truly neutral on a subject because no matter how you much you try, you beliefs ALWAYS influence you. Simply put, she can't give 110% because she doesn't believe in the subject 110%. You may be fine with a 50, 60,or 70% but I am not.
I have to say that I'm thankful that the majority of the public is unaware that these bills exist. Otherwise the general support for them would be overwhelmingly positive and I would find myself spending even more time trying to talk sense into the senseless.
I mean we're talking about a state who's governor allowed one of her children to live in a travel trailer on the grounds of the Governor's Mansion.
but most stupid people are Republicans.
I'd like to know why we need a bill to allow teachers to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a particular theory. Evolution is not iron clad. There has been much research done, and the results have been mixed. Some of the confusion is due to "scientists" not following the scientific method and trying to create the results they'd like to see for political, financial, or (anti)religious reasons. There's a legitimate discussion to be had here. While I happen to believe in creationism, I also understand that it's not part of science and therefore doesn't belong in a science class. However, the total suppression of being allowed to talk about it feels like censorship, and seems fairly intolerant in an environment that is supposed to support the free exchange of ideas.
But hey, the feels! The feeling of never ever being wrong! The smug feeling of always being right, whatever anyone else says! That's got a lot of the pursuit of happiness in it.
A popular form of trolling is to hijack a topic through a segue. You've done exactly that, trying to turn a discussion about creationism in to one about feminism, which is decidedly off-topic.
I would also offer that a flamebait mod would have been acceptable as well as your post was quite clearly intended to incite inflammatory responses, a trolls favorite spicy food, if you will.
Required reading for internet skeptics
See subject: I've always held that belief & I've always been astounded folks wouldn't accept that if that's true then God would have built a biological mechanism that can adapt to survive evolving to do so as needed for surrounding conditions.
* Thus, it's rather ignorant & arrogant to not recognize evolution as part of God's plan + design imo...
(To each his own but they're contradicting their own belief systems to NOT recognize that much!)
APK
P.S.=> God is indeed perfect and would have built his creations to evolve to survive as that would be perfection in design itself in a more perfect design that can do so... apk
The topic is anti science is it not? Is it really hijacking a topic to point out that denial of evolution is taught as fact, totally free of criticism and skepticism in universities? When feminism has succeeded at what creationism seeks to accomplish, denial of evolution, is it actually "decidedly off-topic"? No, of course not. You people need to wake the fuck up. All non-christians know creationism is bullshit, but not a lot of people realise feminism is doing the same thing and far more succesfully.
No comments on the link i posted twice? Is Watson a radical outlier? Is her denial of evolution correct?
Why should I bother? You clearly can't be a arsed to read what I do write, so why should I write more only to have you ignore it, and then make some shit up which confirms your already considerable prejudices.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You should bother, because refusal to examine evidence provided means losing the debate.
You're still trolling. I'd explain why, but I suspect you know as you've clearly adopted a new, but common, trolling tactic. I will not engage you on the content of your post, as that's precisely what you want from this type of troll post.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I already won the debate when you completely redused to actually read what I wrote.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Fine. Do whatever you want, but refusing to answer my arguments and resorting to ad hominems means losing the debate.
How does that work, sweetheart? If your position is that i misunderstood your argument, it's on you to clarify. You lost the debate when you refused to look at evidence. Do you realise that refusing to examine evidence contrary to your position makes you a fanatic, right?
" it simply prohibits any educational official from blocking a teacher who wanted to discuss the 'strengths and weaknesses' of scientific theories. "
So wait.... how it this anti-science. It's actually the other way around, anyone who wants to block someone who wanted to "discuss the 'strengths and weaknesses' of scientific theories. " would actually be anti-science.
Do you see the problem here? Leftists want to shut down any debate and they do it by name calling, because they don't know any other way. Intelligent debate only exists in the center and the right.
except that the law is saying you cant stop a teacher who wants to discuss all sides of an issue and the "open minded" liberals want to shut the argument down.
Every non-bible thumper knows creationism is bullshit.
Every non-social 'scientist' knows the soft 'sciences' are bullshit.
Teaching feminism in the Women's studies departments is the same as teaching creationism is thumper seminarys. The problem is that the government funds one bunch, but the perception is already exactly the same.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
and they made me teach creationism I'd teach about the creation story from the Native Americans or some other culture. ("Oh, you meant the Christian creation story!, Silly me.") Or I'd spend a class going over the creation fables of a large number of cultures. You can make me tell it to them but I'm going to put it in the proper context.
Cue it becoming a political talking point on party lines rather than the merits of the material at hand. This has already been decided in United States Federal Court with Kitzmiller Versus Dover. I think its time we stopped hosting all these unbalanced Fitzroys parading around in our educational system. Instead of slitting their own neck, its sacrificing their constituents.
It would be like someone saying "The moon is made of cheese." The logical reply to that is "No, it isn't. We've sent men to the moon. They've brought back moon rocks, which surprisingly, aren't cheese."
When did we send men back in time to observe evolution? We didn't. Every time we've tried to observe evolution (in a case substantial enough for it to "contradict" creationism), shit goes extinct. That means the theory's false, because evolution says things change, not go extinct. Extinction disproves evolution. If all observed species die before they change, the ultimate theory has some major fuckin' problems.
And here you are, telling me that evolution is true in the face of between 200 and 2,000 extinctions per year versus what.... 2 lab results showing that microorganisms can alter their diets? Citrus and Nylon? Wow. I'd go back to the drawing board with that shit before calling it a "theory". Yes, we have determined that we can breed out certain genes under controlled settings. We can make superbugs in hospitals by eliminating all but the toughest bacteria. But that shit hasn't stuck in the past. The white moths that all got eaten and replaced by black moths went back to being white moths, then white and black moths. There was no permanent, species-wide shifts. It was a short change across a few individuals until the pressure subsided. That doesn't dispute creationism, though.
In this case, YOU are the one screaming that the moon is made of cheese. While everything we brought back so far was "moon rock", Dawkins just released a whole book on how the moon is cheese, and the moon rock is just old asteroids that hit the cheese and were sitting on the cheese.
FIRE BAD!
heterophobia
That's a new one.
"teaching evolution AND creation"... But then you have to ask, *WHOSE* story of creation? The Abrahamic 6-days and whooping it up on the seventh day? Or perhaps Vishnu sprouting a flower in his navel? Or perhaps the Shinto Egg? That's just three right off the top of my head, I know there are many others, so in reality you'd have to teach ALL of them, otherwise you spend years in court because some group you forgot about got left out.
Granted, the whole "egg" story in Shinto sounds an awful like a "big bang" creation theory of the universe. Or, isolated semi-locally, a supernova spawning a stellar nursery.
But these ideologies have not infiltrated science classes like biology, where they actively cast doubt on things like evolution. That's what this is about. That hijacked feminist theories are not getting enough sh*t, doesn't change that Creationism kind of deserves all the sh*t it gets.
Actually, they have, and it's more than a bit of a problem because it's also causing problems if you actually want to do research that will help women that also happens to contradict Feminist dogma. Probably that's also why they don't want to talk about how women in social psychology actually gave us a good case study on why the female perspective is important--because what the female perspective brought was "Wait, what, no women are aggressive" to the study of aggression, which led to researchers admitting that maybe you don't actually have to get physical to be aggressive. Whoops.