This issue will remain for as long as it is possible for anyone to dictate to anyone else what their children will be taught in schools. It's not just science versus superstition, it's also history versus propaganda.
-jcr
The Texas SBOE is a big fan of rewriting history too.
As far back as I can remember, I couldn't wait for the future to arrive and dreamed every night that I would wake up in the 23rd century. So here I am decades later, living in the 19th.
Reasonable does not mean the position is correct. A creationist postion is also reasonable.
Something that's reasonable to believe in an utter absence of evidence becomes unreasonable when there's a huge pile of evidence against it.
The idea that 'kinds' were independent creations was reasonable 3000 years ago, but it is not today.
The problem with both positions is that regarding the origin of life, neither can be proven because neither can be directly observed (short of a time machine). Strong empiricism bites both evolution and creation hard in the ass every time.
Restricting the definition of 'evidence' to "what can be directly observed" is a huckster's trick for putting fact and fiction on equal footing.
We should keep both evolution and creationism out of primary education all together and treat it where it belongs, at the higher levels of education where speculation, conjecture and the like are expected and encouraged to begin with.
If you think evolution is speculation, you're either ignorant, dishonest, or insane.
Really? It sounds like someone from the board of education had a sit down with a statistician and thought it would sound cool to throw in the null because, for some reason, ID is the default explanation for the origin of species.
What's mind-bogglingly funny about that stance is that in statistics the null hypothesis is "the numbers you got are the result of chance", which must be rejected to conclude that there's some cause for getting the numbers you got.
Only a fool (or a logical positivist, which is the same thing) thinks that science can study anything, and only scientifically proven things can matter.
How do you know whether something matters, when there's not even any evidence that it's *real*?
Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster's plan for us matter?
They can. Religious schools are free to do whatever the fuck they want on their own dime.
Taking tax money meant for public education and using it to proselytize? No. Absolutely not. Taxes should not be used for religious purposes. Believe what you want, but pay for it yourself and keep it to yourself.
Hence the popularity of school vouchers. Bypasses reasonable limitations on what can be done with your tax money, with the added benefit of redirecting it to some company's coffers.
Can't you use this as a null hypothesis for everything?
Gravity? Our null hypothesis is God wills things to fall. Earthquakes? Our null hypothesis is God wills the ground to shake. Tides? The tide goes in, the tide goes out. Never a miscommunication.
If you can use it for everything, I think it is a pretty good sign that something is illogical about this way of thinking.
For some people the "null hypothesis" is just "I'm right". But they won't extend that luxury to people who disagree with them.
What if we define omnipotence as "can do anything that is logically possible"? As in, not bound by physical laws, but still bound by logical laws?
In this case, God cannot create a rock so heavy that even He cannot lift it, because no such rock could logically exist. So God's inability to create such a rock does not diminish His omnipotence. It's as if you asked: "Can God create a white sheet of paper that is also completely black?" Either the sheet is white or it is black. Similarly, either God can lift the rock, or the rock's existence is logically impossible.
So, let's cut out the middle man and worship whoever made the rules that God can't break.
Can't fucking demonstrate evolution in the lab my ass.
Okay, so you've got speciation. How do you get from there to evolution?
When two populations no longer interbreed, the mutations within each population become uncorrelated, build up separately, and ultimately result in two unlike phenotypes.
Or maybe you should explain what you mean by "evolution".
If we're the result of the efforts of some "intelligent agency", that just replaces the origins question with "Where did the intelligent agency come from?"
Of course, their answer is "God", who, unlike everything else, they claim does not require an explanation. You regularly hear creationists argue that God must exist because "everything has to have a cause", but when you ask what caused God they're suddenly willing to make an exception.
But when offered the hypotheses of and uncaused God and an uncaused universe, the uncaused universe is the economic explanation; assuming an uncaused God is a bigger assumption, because you're assuming the existence of something that's more than the universe.
Probably because there were other civilians in the compound, namely Osama bin Laden's wife and kids. Maybe the overriding motivation then was to not make people related to Osama into new martyr figures, and maybe secondary motivations are that the US doesn't want to cause unnecessary casualties, or maybe they were targets of arrest but the 2 choppers left over couldn't fit them on and the US was hoping Pakistan would arrest them and perhaps hand them over later (probably not gonna happen).
Supposedly there was a plan to do it with bombs a while back, but they decided on a raid in order to (a) minimize civilian casualties, and (b) make sure there was a body to identify.
some of us no longer see the world as human beings have for thousands of years
Make that about a quarter of a million years (as modern humans), and many millions of years before that (as our pre-human ancestors).
When you're driving down the street and you see a pedestrian, you usually snap to it immediately because our ancestors have needed to detect the human gait for millions of years. But when someone is on a skateboard or scooter you don't snap so fast, because it doesn't make the right neurons fire.
Similarly, GR and QM seem bizarre to us because they operate on scales of time, space, energy, and gravity that our ancestors never had to deal with, but on scales that they did, we do OK - we can catch that baseball[*] even though it hasn't been around for a couple of hundred years, because it's still within the scope of what we've evolved to deal with.
If gagetry is a problem for any reason other than mere distraction, it needs to be viewed in terms of our evolved cognitive abilities, not on "thousands of years" of habit or tradition.
[*] Well, *I* can't, but presumably some of you can.
Slashdot Mirror
This issue will remain for as long as it is possible for anyone to dictate to anyone else what their children will be taught in schools. It's not just science versus superstition, it's also history versus propaganda.
-jcr
The Texas SBOE is a big fan of rewriting history too.
I say we refuse to let the public school system be used as a platform for any group's agenda by removing the material entirely.
As someone pointed out in another thread, removing objectionable material is a form of catering to someone's agenda.
What creationists want for the public schools is that their children never be exposed to anything that will make them question the parents' cult.
As far back as I can remember, I couldn't wait for the future to arrive and dreamed every night that I would wake up in the 23rd century. So here I am decades later, living in the 19th.
No, you're in the 23rd.
BC.
Reasonable does not mean the position is correct. A creationist postion is also reasonable.
Something that's reasonable to believe in an utter absence of evidence becomes unreasonable when there's a huge pile of evidence against it.
The idea that 'kinds' were independent creations was reasonable 3000 years ago, but it is not today.
The problem with both positions is that regarding the origin of life, neither can be proven because neither can be directly observed (short of a time machine). Strong empiricism bites both evolution and creation hard in the ass every time.
Restricting the definition of 'evidence' to "what can be directly observed" is a huckster's trick for putting fact and fiction on equal footing.
We should keep both evolution and creationism out of primary education all together and treat it where it belongs, at the higher levels of education where speculation, conjecture and the like are expected and encouraged to begin with.
If you think evolution is speculation, you're either ignorant, dishonest, or insane.
That... That is a whole lotta derp right there, I tell you what.
Nice post, but you misspelled 'crap'.
Really? It sounds like someone from the board of education had a sit down with a statistician and thought it would sound cool to throw in the null because, for some reason, ID is the default explanation for the origin of species.
What's mind-bogglingly funny about that stance is that in statistics the null hypothesis is "the numbers you got are the result of chance", which must be rejected to conclude that there's some cause for getting the numbers you got.
it's just a show of ignorance when atheists intentionally (or unintentionally) confuse religion and cult
Pray tell: what *is* the difference between a religion and a cult?
Only a fool (or a logical positivist, which is the same thing) thinks that science can study anything, and only scientifically proven things can matter.
How do you know whether something matters, when there's not even any evidence that it's *real*?
Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster's plan for us matter?
They can. Religious schools are free to do whatever the fuck they want on their own dime.
Taking tax money meant for public education and using it to proselytize? No. Absolutely not. Taxes should not be used for religious purposes. Believe what you want, but pay for it yourself and keep it to yourself.
Hence the popularity of school vouchers. Bypasses reasonable limitations on what can be done with your tax money, with the added benefit of redirecting it to some company's coffers.
Can't you use this as a null hypothesis for everything?
Gravity? Our null hypothesis is God wills things to fall.
Earthquakes? Our null hypothesis is God wills the ground to shake.
Tides? The tide goes in, the tide goes out. Never a miscommunication.
If you can use it for everything, I think it is a pretty good sign that something is illogical about this way of thinking.
For some people the "null hypothesis" is just "I'm right". But they won't extend that luxury to people who disagree with them.
What if we define omnipotence as "can do anything that is logically possible"? As in, not bound by physical laws, but still bound by logical laws?
In this case, God cannot create a rock so heavy that even He cannot lift it, because no such rock could logically exist. So God's inability to create such a rock does not diminish His omnipotence. It's as if you asked: "Can God create a white sheet of paper that is also completely black?" Either the sheet is white or it is black. Similarly, either God can lift the rock, or the rock's existence is logically impossible.
So, let's cut out the middle man and worship whoever made the rules that God can't break.
Isn't this where the Flying Spaghetti Monster came from? Created to [snip]
Wait - the FSM was created? Did His Noodley Appendage reach back in time and create something to create him?
Now I'm confused.
Can't fucking demonstrate evolution in the lab my ass.
Okay, so you've got speciation. How do you get from there to evolution?
When two populations no longer interbreed, the mutations within each population become uncorrelated, build up separately, and ultimately result in two unlike phenotypes.
Or maybe you should explain what you mean by "evolution".
If we're the result of the efforts of some "intelligent agency", that just replaces the origins question with "Where did the intelligent agency come from?"
Of course, their answer is "God", who, unlike everything else, they claim does not require an explanation. You regularly hear creationists argue that God must exist because "everything has to have a cause", but when you ask what caused God they're suddenly willing to make an exception.
But when offered the hypotheses of and uncaused God and an uncaused universe, the uncaused universe is the economic explanation; assuming an uncaused God is a bigger assumption, because you're assuming the existence of something that's more than the universe.
...in thirty years, when the technology is so commonplace that every terrorist, assassin, etc. can get one.
Last time I updated Company of Heros, P2P is the only way I could get the patches. From the publisher.
Maybe they should cut out the middle men and sue ARPA for creating the internet?
Signs of Dark Matter From Minnesota Mine
Coal?
Yeah, that's why the call it "Coal Dark Matter".
seal team 6 is going back in to assassinate whoever has the parts and taking them back
Or maybe Apple's lawyers.
Exactly... It would seem likely that Chinooks were sent in only after a delay and after the Pakistani authorities knew something was amiss.
I've been wondering whether the raid was accompanied by a preemptory "stand down (or else)" order to the Pakistanis.
Probably because there were other civilians in the compound, namely Osama bin Laden's wife and kids. Maybe the overriding motivation then was to not make people related to Osama into new martyr figures, and maybe secondary motivations are that the US doesn't want to cause unnecessary casualties, or maybe they were targets of arrest but the 2 choppers left over couldn't fit them on and the US was hoping Pakistan would arrest them and perhaps hand them over later (probably not gonna happen).
Supposedly there was a plan to do it with bombs a while back, but they decided on a raid in order to (a) minimize civilian casualties, and (b) make sure there was a body to identify.
I'm glad to see that DHS has lots of free time on their hands, now that OBL is dead.
But if they aren't going to spend time on homeland security, we should disband the monster.
Probably should anyway...
some of us no longer see the world as human beings have for thousands of years
Make that about a quarter of a million years (as modern humans), and many millions of years before that (as our pre-human ancestors).
When you're driving down the street and you see a pedestrian, you usually snap to it immediately because our ancestors have needed to detect the human gait for millions of years. But when someone is on a skateboard or scooter you don't snap so fast, because it doesn't make the right neurons fire.
Similarly, GR and QM seem bizarre to us because they operate on scales of time, space, energy, and gravity that our ancestors never had to deal with, but on scales that they did, we do OK - we can catch that baseball[*] even though it hasn't been around for a couple of hundred years, because it's still within the scope of what we've evolved to deal with.
If gagetry is a problem for any reason other than mere distraction, it needs to be viewed in terms of our evolved cognitive abilities, not on "thousands of years" of habit or tradition.
[*] Well, *I* can't, but presumably some of you can.
OBL's death generates 27 tangential Slashdot stories.
Osama Bin Laden may be dead, but without Ewoks & a John Williams music score to celebrate this mighty victory with, it feels kind of empty.
Darth Vader died with redemption. OBL just got nailed. Nor orchestra or dancing naked Ewoks are called for.
Does that mean it's okay to dress as Bin Laden for Halloween this year?
Depends on how many gun-toting idiots don't think he's really dead.