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.
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.
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.
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.
Except that if you ignore them, they use that as acceptance. "See? No one's complaining!"
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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
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.
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.
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.
There's nothing stopping you from starting your own school if your views are so alienated from your neighbors' views that you can't abide their schools' teachings.
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.
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.
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
Because to them, if Genesis is false, so is John 3:16, Evolution dissolves the contract of the religion. This is about preserving a cult in the face of facts pushing to the contrary. If Evolution is fact, their god, and its associated salvation is false.
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.
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
It is a red herring to what? A red herring is always a diversion from the actual issue of the topic, which consciously or unconsciously leads to the wrong conclusion. Where is this actual issue here? Because if there isn't one and the issue we're discussing here is in fact "creationism", that makes your entire line of arguing a red herring.
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.
Actually, I think state GDP (which is called GSP) is not necessarily the most accurate metric to use.
I mean, yes, Vermont is last in state GSP, and California is first.
But if you look at GSP per capita (okay, using 2012 numbers here, not 2015 numbers, but I doubt the 2015 per capita numbers are out yet.)
California drops to 17th. Vermont rises to 32nd.
Oklahoma was 29th in GSP, but in GSP per capita, (again using 2012 numbers) Oklahoma drops to 37th.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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?
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.
I think that's a feature to people like Kohath, rather than a bug. People who grew up in cults want their children to do so as well. It's upsetting to them when their kids move beyond their childhood superstitions, and join the modern world.
If his neighbors have stupid beliefs, what you call "views," it's in all of our best interest that their children become smarter than they are. Generation after generation of superstitious derp is why people in our more backward states keep voting for destructive politicians. It's really easy to trick religious rubes, so it's in our best interest to have more educated people, and less rubes.
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.
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.
Translation: no.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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'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.
You are so afraid of death that you are gripping to the myth of adult Santa Claus (aka Jesus) with white knuckles fervently hoping you will be on his good list so that you can have an eternity of presents in the after life and it has made you wildly psychotic. Get off my planet.
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
If we had a voucher system in my Bible Belt area, EVERY school would be teaching bible nonsense thereby negating the usefulness of vouchers.
What are these vouchers I keep seeing mentioned?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
The only way anybody gives 110% is 25% each Monday-Thursday and 10% on Friday.
Please kick all the moron, football coach type managers that use this term right in the balls/cunt.
As to teaching, the 110% people are the problem. Weather creationist or warmist, they believe they're view is beyond questioning.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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'
Your going to end up in a war with all their other neighbors. Over who has to take them.
e.g. Missouri, New Mexico and Colorado share a short border with OK. They should be stuck with part of it. No fair making Texas, Kansas and Arkansas take it all.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If 1 Timothy 2:12 is false so is John 3:16?
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.
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.