All facts are interpreted according to a certain worldview where basic underlying assumptions are made.
Right. And some people will take the fact of the snow layers we currently witness forming year after year, and the fact that they visibly and countably run down more than a hundred thousand layers, and by the world view of a particular interpretation of the bible proceed to "interpret" those layers by means of ignoring them.
What effect does the Industrial Revolution and the subsequent history's use of fossil fuels have on carbon dating?
Interesting question.
It would have no effect on anything already old and dead. It wouldn't really have any effect on normal uses of carbon dating. What the Industrial Revolution and burning fossil fuels has done is taken large amounts of "old" C14-depleted carbon out of the ground and dumped it into the atmosphere as CO2. Radiation hitting the upper atmosphere slowly turns some of that carbon into "fresh" radioactive C14. However I believe it takes several thousands of years for that conversion to C14 to really rise to its full level. So this means that for a few thousand years the carbon in the air is going to be somewhat C14 depleted - it reads as "old" in carbon dating. Plants will consume that "old" carbon CO2 from the air and photosynthesize it into the sugars and starches and proteins and everything else that makes up the plant. This should have the effect of dead modern plants testing as probably a few hundred years older than they actually are. It will have the same effect on animals - the plants eat "old" carbon from the air and then the animals eat the "old" carbon from the plants. The animals build their bodies out of that "old" carbon in their food.
So the effect will likely be maybe a few hundred year shift in the apparent readings for materials from this general era, but carbon dating readings will be calibrated against the expected results to take that effect into account. Future archaeologists may have trouble telling the difference between 1700's materials and 2000's materials. They may read about the same.
My estimates may be off on the size of the effect, but that is how carbon dating works and that is approximately the sort of impact it should have.
studying the patterns of behavior in people with respect to their times of birth
Don't forget it can be a completely circular effect. For example Aries are supposed to be self confident and stubborn. By having people tell an Aries that he is supposed to have those traits, and expecting him to behave that way, it can in fact encourage and reinforce those traits in that person. Even if in fact that person was adopted and the paperwork was botched and we was never an Aries in the first place. It's the expectation that produces the result.
Take me for example. My sign is Neon. Neons tend to be arrogant and mock irrational bullshit.
See? It's a self fulfilling prophesy. It even worked on me.
That is not "rhetorical". That is not idle curiosity.
Palin asked what the response be if asked to remove some books from the library, with an answer of absolute resistance against it.
And then Palin pursued it a second time. And was again told off.
And then Palin pursued it a thiid time. And was again told off.
Now, had Palin merely been trying to find out how the library would handle that sort of situation, and been given that 'absolutely not' answer, and had she said "Ah, good!", and dropped it there, then this would be a non-issue. However she didn't respond joyously to that no-censorship response. She didn't drop it after "rhetorically" asking about it. She kept going after it three times. And we have multiple witnesses reporting it was indeed phrased as an effort to pursue such action. And we have the amazingly-coincidental letter of termination after the librarian refused three times.
She didn't even mention any books specifically
Right. I said that in my last post. Palin repeatedly pressed the issue of such a process, and was repeatedly told to fuck off.
It is willful blindness to persist in denial that THRE THRE THREE conversations pursuing the subject after being repeatedly told "no" somehow magically go noes involve any interest in the subject by Palin.
Well obviously "scientifically criminal" is figurative, but given that, no not hyperbole at all.
You would, I hope, agree it not particularly hyperbolic to call it "scientifically criminal" to give highschool students a "science education" attempting to refute atom theory. Right?
There are people spreading all sorts of misinformation claiming evolution is not valid established science, but I say it's just as fake as tobacco company "science" proving no link between smoking and cancer. There is a vast body of scientific evidence proving evolution way beyond any reasonable doubt. Just as there's science proving atom theory way beyond any reasonable doubt.
I see really only two problems here. One, most people were simply never taught this stuff in highschool science class, and two, there are many people who simply do not want to understand any of it. It is impossible to explain something or prove eomething to someone who is highly motivated to not-understand it. On the other hand if someone has doubts or legitimate questions about evolution, if someone has been convinced by the arguments against evolution but is legitimately open to understanding why scientists consider evolution undeniably established, then in my experience it really doesn't take particularly long to win them over completely. I am quite confident in my evidence, and I have completely convinced a couple of skeptics. Any well informed well prepared high school biology teacher should have no problem presenting sufficient evidence to prove the fundamental truth of evolution to every student who's mind is not totally closed. Sadly most of our highschools don't do that.
At this point you are likely thinking that those are all unsupported assertions. And you'd be right. I can back them up, but backing up any field of science takes rather more than a few short sentences. If you have questions about evolution and you honestly want to understand, I can almost certainly answer them. If you honestly want to understand why I, and effectively 100% of all biologists, believe evolution is proven beyond any reasonable doubt, I can give a few rock solid examples of that undeniable evidence.
I'm just really really tired of people wedded to some notion that evolution==atheism or somesuch, and who fling random challenges against evolution and who don't care about the questions/challenges they are flinging, and who don't care when they are successfully answered. I have had people admit I successfully answered three or four of their consecutive attacks against evolution in a row, admit that three or four of their arguments in a row were wrong, and they don't care. They go back to the same junk website that they know gave them several junk arguments in a row, and they just grab the next junk argument to fling, in the dogmatic expectation that sooner or later one of them will stick. That is seriously annoying and is a waste of everyone's time.
I'm honestly willing to understand your questions or objections on evolution if you are honestly care about some particular issue and you actually care about understanding the answer. I'm willing to present why I consider evolution conclusively established if you honestly care why some people are so powerfully convinced by evolution. But don't waste both our time.
Oh, and if you you do want to pursue such a conversation, please start off by indicating if you are a Young Earth Creationist. YEC is a simpler and quicker subject than evolution, and we will both be able to quickly determine if we are capable of a mutually productive conversation.
Seems sad we're still arguing about this after more than a hundred years of Darwinism, doesn't it?
I have this self-quote, sort of my philosophy of life, and I think it pretty well answeres your question:)
I'm an optimist and a cynic. That is not a contradiction. The future is always getting better than past ever was, but people seriously suck and always have to fuck everything up as much as possible along the way.
Perhaps I phrased something poorly, or perhaps you misunderstood my intent, or maybe you've been misled by all of the anti-evolution nonsense, but there shouldn't be anything ironic in the message I intended...
I thought a large part of science was understanding that we don't know everything and that nothing is set in stone.
Absolute agreed.
By saying that there is no "other way", you imply that we know for certain that these processes are set in stone.
Nothing is set in stone. However there is currently no second scientific side in this evolution battle.
If and when someone comes up with science overturning chemistry or evolution or anything else in science, GREAT! That is scientific progress. But again, there is today no second scientific side on chemistry, there is today no second scientific side on evolution. Today, the ONE AND ONLY scientific side completely confirms both chemistry and evolution.
I am fairly familiar with the evidence and science supporting evolution, and I am fairly familiar with the evidence and "science" attempting to refute evolution. There is, today, nothing more than rhetoric and wishful pseudoscience against evolution. None of it holds up under scientific scrutiny. Calls for teaching "both sides" and for "debate" of the issue in highschool science classes are based on fraudulent anti-evolution public relations claims and based on bogo-science.
Thanx for the link, I hadn't seen that ruling. Effectively a complete reversal of this ruling, and justified by nothing more than a superficial change in the paperwork.
One more Supreme Court appointment and they can scrap that pesky Lemon Test and all Constitutional religious protections completely.
Right. Three times Palin when to the librarian trying to censor books, and three times the librarian refused to go along with it. And then Palin sent an official letter firing the librarian. Thankfully the librarian was popular and happened to get enough public outrage over it to get Palin to back down. "ZERO books were actually banned", which is a good thing, but it's merely because Palin FAILED in her attempt.
So we should be very skeptical of stories like this until real concrete proof can be found of anything.
We dont' have the concrete list of books she intended to remove, and we don't have concrete proof that refusal-to-remove-books was the direct cause for firing the librarian.
Aside from those two points, this is all old news. All public long before Palin was suggested for vice pres.
The cause-for-firing is a seriously obvious conclusion, but it fundamentally doesn't matter. TIt wouldn't much matter if Palin ordered the librarian fired for some unknown and completely unrelated reason.
Ok.... lets bend over backwards in favor of Palin.... lets reject the obvious connection for the firing, lets assume that Palin fired the librarian for some other reason. Lets assume it was even an entirely legitimate cause for firing, and lets assume that Barracuda-pitbull-Palin backed down over the legitimate firing of a librarian just because the librarian was popular with a couple of whigners. We still have Palin repeatedly wanting to remove books, and we still have that she wanted-to and would-have proceeded with book removal had the librarian been successfully fired-for-some-other-reason.
The reason for the attempted firing is almost irrelevant. It is merely an aggravating factor on the real problem. The problem here is who Palin is. The problem is that she wants to use her office to remove books, she uses her office to tell government officials under her to carry out her censorship agenda to remove books. The fact that a librarian under her refused to comply, and that we found out about the situation, is all mere fortunate accident. The problem is that this is who Palin is and this is what she wants to do, what she tries to do, the problem is that in most cases government officials and employees under her will carry out the removal of books or other "offending" content at her command, that this would go on and we would not even be told it's happening.
If you want to be "skeptical" about the concrete cause for the firing, fine. But it's irrelevant. It does not much diminish the problem with Palin here.
If you think it's fine and dandy to have librarians strip books off the shelves, then I say both you and Palin are the problem. Note that I am not accusing you of that, I just want to cut that road off ahead of time.
Libraries have limited budgets and have the unfortunate and difficult task of trying to get the most bang for the buck with that limited budget, the difficult task of what to put on to the shelves. Wanting to add everything, and being forced to prioritize selections for value and diversity. However it is a bad bad bad mentality that wants to run around stripping books off of library shelves. That kind of mentality is seriously bad, and it is seriously dangerous in high government officials. People who think it appropriate for them to use their office and the power of government to remove or ban books or other content that they don't want other people to have.
>Can we look forward to a Net with all the offensive stuff removed, or else?
because Internet == tax-funded library?
Because authoritarian censorship crusader == authoritarian censorship crusader.
Promoting that sort of authoritarian crusader politician to higher public office has the inevitable effect of increasing the scope and reach of their censorship-crusade.
Seriously, if she wants to abuse her government powers to keep dangerous or offensive books out of the Wassila public library, do you seriously doubt she's going to see the internet as far more dangerous and far more important to apply government control? All the little children can be damaged and corruped by all the naughty naughty pictures on the internet and all the dangerous dangerous offensive ideas on the internet. She just wants to help parents protect the wee little children against the evil evil people spewing filth and dangerous evil ideas on the internet.
Minor correction: As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching Flat Earth Theory alongside evolution in public schools. should read: As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching Flat Earth Theory alongside the solar system in public schools.
Yeah, at best all of Palin's statements indicate she has no idea what she is talking about. And based on everything else I've learned about her, I don't think that best case theory applies here. She really is in favor of violating church and state to push her theology in science class, but she is smart enough and political enough to be selective in her statements and methods for pursuing her agenda. It would be like trying to directly pass a law outlawing abortion - it would result in complete legal failure and political failure. She knows damn well that she has to work around and carefully undermine laws she dislikes - laws that get in the way of what she believes right and good.
At best she is clueless and passively sympathetic to the anti-evolution conflict. Much more likely she damn well knows "teach-the-controversy" is the only legally and politically viable road for her to pursue her religious agenda in the schools.
There is no more a second scientific side to teach about evolution than there is a second scientific side to teach about chemistry or the solar system. Just because there is a social controversy and political controversy debating whether the-earth-goes-around-the-sun or whether the-sun-goes-around-the-earth does not mean there is any genuine scientific controversy. In science class there is no second side for any debate.
The problem here is that we're dealing with government primary and secondary schools, so no one can agree on what to teach with taxpayer money.
I suggest we stick to teaching the facts, to teaching an accurate factual presentation of scientific fields as understood and practiced by professionals in that field.
The indisputed fact is that, rounded to the nearest full percentage point, the understanding and practice of 100% of professional biologists is based on evolution. If you want to go to tenths-of-a-percent, it's 99.9% or maybe 99.8% of professional biologists who understand and practice their field based on evolution. You can find a roughly comparable number of people who reject solar fusion and instead claim the sun is powered by electricity. It would be a gross mis-education to give students any indication that electric-powered-sun in any way remotely represented the modern understanding or practice of any field of science.
Even if atoms and elements are wrong, it is a indisputable fact that the understanding and practice of chemistry is based on atom and element theory. It is impossible to get any understanding of modern chemistry, it is impossible to understand the modern practice of chemistry, if one does not learn atom and element theory. even if atoms theory and element theory are wrong, it is impossible to properly enter the field of chemistry to do credible science proving them wrong without first getting an education in atom theory and element theory.
It doesn't much matter if someone claims evolution is wrong, it doesn't matter if they want to dispute scientific facts. One cannot teach biology without teaching the the fact that evolution is the current understanding and practice of 100% of biology professionals.
The real solution to this problem is school choice, letting the parents decide where to send their children.
Parents are certainly free to teach kids anything they like, and they can certainly hire people to teach their kids whatever they like, however the government cannot proselytize a religion. Nor can the government hire someone to proselytize a religion.
If some parents have a religious belief that chemistry is wrong, they can certainly teach that to their kids. If parents want to pay a Madrassa (or some Christian version of a Madrassa) to teach anti-chemistry theology, they can certainly do so. However the government cannot run that Madrassa, nor can government pay to run that Madrassa.
"School choice" cannot be a cover for using the government to indoctrinate a religion. Government funds cannot be used to promote one religion above another or to oppress any religion, even if it is parent selecting which religion they want the government to promote (or oppress) for their particular child. Government funds to teach reading and writing and math and science cannot be diverted to indoctrinate a religion just because some reduced fraction of those monies may go math and other non-religious education.
Also, it would be quite improper for state governments to mandate curriculum for private schools, religious or not.
Right. However the state government can certainly set minimum reading and math qualifications for a government-certified highschool diploma. The state government can certainly set minimum curriculum and minimum standards in science and other subjects for a state certified highschool diploma.
A private schools could entirely skip teaching math at all, or even skip teaching students how to read. Such schools can certainly issue their own diplomas and rely strictly upon their own reputation to uphold the value of those diplomas. Colleges and employers can then use their own discretion as to the value of a highschool diploma which fails to meet state certified minimal educational standards.
I guess what they really need to teach is reading comprehension... She said to teach it all and debate it.
Yeah, the scientifically criminal "teach the controversy" bullshit.
I mean seriously, what woulf you say if some candidate wanted to bring pro-astrology textbooks into astronomy science lessons and pro-alchemy textbooks into chemistry classrooms, in order to have teachers "teach the controversy"?
There is political controversy over evolution, there is social controversy over evolution, however there is no scientific controversy over evolution. You are suggesting we should bring in flat-earth textbooks into science class and "debate" the issue.
Lets take a concrete look at what we are talking about here, a concrete look at how your proposed education and "debate" would have to go:
It's science class, we teach what the Second law of thermodynamics says, and we teach what it means. We teach that the 2nd law of thermo says that the average entropy (disorder) of a closed system increases, or at best stays constant. We teach the significance of the word "average" in there - that it means that one party of the system can become more ordered if some other part of the system becomes even more disordered to "pay" for that increase in order. Then we also teach the meaning and importance of "a closed system", we teach that if outside energy comes into the system, that energy can be used to do work and can pay for the work to create an increase in order in the system. We then teach a variety of common examples where nature spontaneously produces order out of chaos. We show how a flowing river will automatically separate, sort, and organize different size pebbles. We cover how chaotic disordered water atoms automatically form into complex highly ordered snowflakes. We cover how the sun provides energy to do work on earth melting and forming snowflakes. We cover how energy from the sun can do work to increase order on earth, and how increases in order are *not* a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
We then "teach both sides" of the evolution issue.... we bring in a standard science textbook to teach evolution. Then then we bring in an anti-evolution textbook to teach "the other side". And in that anti-evolution textbook they present arguments such as "evolution is impossible because it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics". It teaches that evolution involves an increase in order and information, and it teaches that that is impossible according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
And then you let the students engage in a "debate" on the evolution issue.
And during that debate one student remembers the snowflake example, that student points out that the anti-evolution textbook is wrong for claiming that increases in order and complexity is impossible. Points out that the anti-evolution textbook was wrong in it's claimed proof against evolution. That student points out that the anti-evolution textbook did not correctly understand the science of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, points out that the anti-evolution textbook gets the science wrong. That the textbook is filled with errors and misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
Then a second student stands up to argue the other side. A student who did not understand the lesson on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That student misunderstands it and makes errors. That student presents an invalid argument filled with errors and misunderstandings.
You then give the first student an A and you flunk the second student.
That is how a "scientific debate" on evolution has to go in a legitimate science class. All of the "scientific" arguments against evolution are based on misunderstandings or ignorance errors or misrepresentations or the like.
A science classroom debate on evolution is no different than such a debate on chemistry. In science class they can only end the exact same way.
Also, many Christian schools do teach evolution as well. Some call it a the
At issue is the FCC's requirement that the winner offer free wireless broadband services in a portion of the spectrum, a move the wireless industry contends will lead to interference for 3G phone users.
Duh! Of course free wireless broadband is going to cause interference.
The FCC needs to immediately allow them to charge for it in order to prevent interference.
Completely agreed. Politics sucks. Both parties suck.
However it would be a fallacy to suggest that makes them equal. Both parties can engage in misdeeds where the misdeeds of one party are comparatively rare and/or minor while the misdeeds of the other are comparatively common and/or more severe.
There's not one unified Republican body, nor one unified Democratic body.
Both parties do have a leadership and command structure, and both parties have state and local levels of leadership and control, and of course both parties are filled with volunteer workers and other individuals who can engage in individual rogue bad acts. So you are absolutely right that blame does not automatically go to the party as a whole. A party as a whole should not be condemned for the actions of a rogue individual, so long as it did not foster such behavior and it responds appropriately to condemn/terminate/prohibit such actions. The national level of a party should not be condemned for problems at the state or local level, and the state level should not be condemned for problems at the local level, if the higher level did not foster such actions by the lower level, and so long as the higher level responds appropriately to condemn/terminate/prohibit such actions by the lower levels.
We are talking here about a behavior that occurred in at least 53 congressional districts in 2006. And while 53 districts is only about 12% of all districts, it in fact represents a national systematic policy targeting contested races. Most races are forgone conclusions. Most races are known to be landslides for one party or the other. This "mere 12%", these 53 districts, in fact represent a systematic party policy of using dirty tactics to dishonestly tilt any race that might be close. They simply don't bother with such tactics in races they already know they can't win or can't lose.
We are talking here about behavior that has been going on for a decade or more.
Yes, it is completely appropriate to tag "the Republican party as a whole" for this. The national party gets intimately involved in contested races. It is beyond reason to suggest they did nothing to command or foster such activities across all of these contested national races, it is beyond reason to suggest they were unaware of such activities before or during them, and it is imposible to suggest they were unaware of them after the fact. Even going beyond all reason and granting the national party the most extreme benefit of the doubt, they at minimum knew-after-the-fact of such activities going on for a decade or more, and did nothing. Even granting the most extreme benefit of the doubt, the national party passively accepted such activities spreading to become the de-facto policy of the party as a whole.
And I assert that false-flag robocalls is merely one example of dishonest election tactics. Whether it comes down by command as Republican National Committee strategy, or if it is an endemic culture of dishonesty coming up from below and passively condoned by party leadership, the Republican party has a culture accepting dishonest win-by-any-means politics.
For example one main Republican strategy is a huge get-out-the-vote push with evangelicals. Which is perfectly legitimate. And the Democratic response to that is, in general, an attempt to reach out and win over some of those voters.
A main Democratic strategy is a huge drive to register and get out the minority and other disadvantaged vote. Which is perfectly legitimate. And the all-too-common Republican response to that is are malicious, dishonest, and often even outright illegal, voter suppression tactics. Yes, many of the most outrageous cases can be blamed on rogue individuals or the local level of the party, but it is way too common, and it is culturally tolerated or fostered, and yes, in some cases the National level gets directly involved instituting such activities or battling for them in cour
This is the real deal. This is not a test. For everyone thinking they can ride this storm out, I have news for you: that will be one of the biggest mistakes you can make in your life
Slashdot Mirror
Chuckle. Did you win the debate? And aside from formally winning/losing, did you actually convince anyone?
-
Oops, I accidentally deleted the part about these being yearly layers in the arctic ice pack.
-
All facts are interpreted according to a certain worldview where basic underlying assumptions are made.
Right.
And some people will take the fact of the snow layers we currently witness forming year after year, and the fact that they visibly and countably run down more than a hundred thousand layers, and by the world view of a particular interpretation of the bible proceed to "interpret" those layers by means of ignoring them.
-
What effect does the Industrial Revolution and the subsequent history's use of fossil fuels have on carbon dating?
Interesting question.
It would have no effect on anything already old and dead. It wouldn't really have any effect on normal uses of carbon dating. What the Industrial Revolution and burning fossil fuels has done is taken large amounts of "old" C14-depleted carbon out of the ground and dumped it into the atmosphere as CO2. Radiation hitting the upper atmosphere slowly turns some of that carbon into "fresh" radioactive C14. However I believe it takes several thousands of years for that conversion to C14 to really rise to its full level. So this means that for a few thousand years the carbon in the air is going to be somewhat C14 depleted - it reads as "old" in carbon dating. Plants will consume that "old" carbon CO2 from the air and photosynthesize it into the sugars and starches and proteins and everything else that makes up the plant. This should have the effect of dead modern plants testing as probably a few hundred years older than they actually are. It will have the same effect on animals - the plants eat "old" carbon from the air and then the animals eat the "old" carbon from the plants. The animals build their bodies out of that "old" carbon in their food.
So the effect will likely be maybe a few hundred year shift in the apparent readings for materials from this general era, but carbon dating readings will be calibrated against the expected results to take that effect into account. Future archaeologists may have trouble telling the difference between 1700's materials and 2000's materials. They may read about the same.
My estimates may be off on the size of the effect, but that is how carbon dating works and that is approximately the sort of impact it should have.
-
studying the patterns of behavior in people with respect to their times of birth
Don't forget it can be a completely circular effect. For example Aries are supposed to be self confident and stubborn. By having people tell an Aries that he is supposed to have those traits, and expecting him to behave that way, it can in fact encourage and reinforce those traits in that person. Even if in fact that person was adopted and the paperwork was botched and we was never an Aries in the first place. It's the expectation that produces the result.
Take me for example. My sign is Neon. Neons tend to be arrogant and mock irrational bullshit.
See? It's a self fulfilling prophesy. It even worked on me.
-
Wiping out most species on the planet has to qualify as an evolutionary step backwards.
Unless of course you're a cockroach, in which case it's a huge leap forward.
-
Good explanation, but I find it's better to just skip the cookies entirely and stick to cupcakes.
-
How blinded by partisan bias are you?
Palin pusued this THREE TIMES.
THREE TIMES.
THREE TIMES.
That is not "rhetorical". That is not idle curiosity.
Palin asked what the response be if asked to remove some books from the library, with an answer of absolute resistance against it.
And then Palin pursued it a second time. And was again told off.
And then Palin pursued it a thiid time. And was again told off.
Now, had Palin merely been trying to find out how the library would handle that sort of situation, and been given that 'absolutely not' answer, and had she said "Ah, good!", and dropped it there, then this would be a non-issue. However she didn't respond joyously to that no-censorship response. She didn't drop it after "rhetorically" asking about it. She kept going after it three times. And we have multiple witnesses reporting it was indeed phrased as an effort to pursue such action. And we have the amazingly-coincidental letter of termination after the librarian refused three times.
She didn't even mention any books specifically
Right. I said that in my last post. Palin repeatedly pressed the issue of such a process, and was repeatedly told to fuck off.
It is willful blindness to persist in denial that THRE THRE THREE conversations pursuing the subject after being repeatedly told "no" somehow magically go noes involve any interest in the subject by Palin.
-
Hyperbole much there, Mr. Scientist Cop?
Well obviously "scientifically criminal" is figurative, but given that, no not hyperbole at all.
You would, I hope, agree it not particularly hyperbolic to call it "scientifically criminal" to give highschool students a "science education" attempting to refute atom theory. Right?
There are people spreading all sorts of misinformation claiming evolution is not valid established science, but I say it's just as fake as tobacco company "science" proving no link between smoking and cancer. There is a vast body of scientific evidence proving evolution way beyond any reasonable doubt. Just as there's science proving atom theory way beyond any reasonable doubt.
I see really only two problems here. One, most people were simply never taught this stuff in highschool science class, and two, there are many people who simply do not want to understand any of it. It is impossible to explain something or prove eomething to someone who is highly motivated to not-understand it. On the other hand if someone has doubts or legitimate questions about evolution, if someone has been convinced by the arguments against evolution but is legitimately open to understanding why scientists consider evolution undeniably established, then in my experience it really doesn't take particularly long to win them over completely. I am quite confident in my evidence, and I have completely convinced a couple of skeptics. Any well informed well prepared high school biology teacher should have no problem presenting sufficient evidence to prove the fundamental truth of evolution to every student who's mind is not totally closed. Sadly most of our highschools don't do that.
At this point you are likely thinking that those are all unsupported assertions. And you'd be right. I can back them up, but backing up any field of science takes rather more than a few short sentences. If you have questions about evolution and you honestly want to understand, I can almost certainly answer them. If you honestly want to understand why I, and effectively 100% of all biologists, believe evolution is proven beyond any reasonable doubt, I can give a few rock solid examples of that undeniable evidence.
I'm just really really tired of people wedded to some notion that evolution==atheism or somesuch, and who fling random challenges against evolution and who don't care about the questions/challenges they are flinging, and who don't care when they are successfully answered. I have had people admit I successfully answered three or four of their consecutive attacks against evolution in a row, admit that three or four of their arguments in a row were wrong, and they don't care. They go back to the same junk website that they know gave them several junk arguments in a row, and they just grab the next junk argument to fling, in the dogmatic expectation that sooner or later one of them will stick. That is seriously annoying and is a waste of everyone's time.
I'm honestly willing to understand your questions or objections on evolution if you are honestly care about some particular issue and you actually care about understanding the answer. I'm willing to present why I consider evolution conclusively established if you honestly care why some people are so powerfully convinced by evolution. But don't waste both our time.
Oh, and if you you do want to pursue such a conversation, please start off by indicating if you are a Young Earth Creationist. YEC is a simpler and quicker subject than evolution, and we will both be able to quickly determine if we are capable of a mutually productive conversation.
-
Amen.
-
Seems sad we're still arguing about this after more than a hundred years of Darwinism, doesn't it?
I have this self-quote, sort of my philosophy of life, and I think it pretty well answeres your question :)
I'm an optimist and a cynic. That is not a contradiction. The future is always getting better than past ever was, but people seriously suck and always have to fuck everything up as much as possible along the way.
-
This post is very ironic to me.
Perhaps I phrased something poorly, or perhaps you misunderstood my intent, or maybe you've been misled by all of the anti-evolution nonsense, but there shouldn't be anything ironic in the message I intended...
I thought a large part of science was understanding that we don't know everything and that nothing is set in stone.
Absolute agreed.
By saying that there is no "other way", you imply that we know for certain that these processes are set in stone.
Nothing is set in stone.
However there is currently no second scientific side in this evolution battle.
If and when someone comes up with science overturning chemistry or evolution or anything else in science, GREAT! That is scientific progress. But again, there is today no second scientific side on chemistry, there is today no second scientific side on evolution. Today, the ONE AND ONLY scientific side completely confirms both chemistry and evolution.
I am fairly familiar with the evidence and science supporting evolution, and I am fairly familiar with the evidence and "science" attempting to refute evolution. There is, today, nothing more than rhetoric and wishful pseudoscience against evolution. None of it holds up under scientific scrutiny. Calls for teaching "both sides" and for "debate" of the issue in highschool science classes are based on fraudulent anti-evolution public relations claims and based on bogo-science.
-
Thanx for the link, I hadn't seen that ruling. Effectively a complete reversal of this ruling, and justified by nothing more than a superficial change in the paperwork.
One more Supreme Court appointment and they can scrap that pesky Lemon Test and all Constitutional religious protections completely.
-
ZERO books were actually banned.
Right.
Three times Palin when to the librarian trying to censor books, and three times the librarian refused to go along with it. And then Palin sent an official letter firing the librarian. Thankfully the librarian was popular and happened to get enough public outrage over it to get Palin to back down. "ZERO books were actually banned", which is a good thing, but it's merely because Palin FAILED in her attempt.
So we should be very skeptical of stories like this until real concrete proof can be found of anything.
We dont' have the concrete list of books she intended to remove, and we don't have concrete proof that refusal-to-remove-books was the direct cause for firing the librarian.
Aside from those two points, this is all old news. All public long before Palin was suggested for vice pres.
The cause-for-firing is a seriously obvious conclusion, but it fundamentally doesn't matter. TIt wouldn't much matter if Palin ordered the librarian fired for some unknown and completely unrelated reason.
Ok.... lets bend over backwards in favor of Palin.... lets reject the obvious connection for the firing, lets assume that Palin fired the librarian for some other reason. Lets assume it was even an entirely legitimate cause for firing, and lets assume that Barracuda-pitbull-Palin backed down over the legitimate firing of a librarian just because the librarian was popular with a couple of whigners. We still have Palin repeatedly wanting to remove books, and we still have that she wanted-to and would-have proceeded with book removal had the librarian been successfully fired-for-some-other-reason.
The reason for the attempted firing is almost irrelevant. It is merely an aggravating factor on the real problem. The problem here is who Palin is. The problem is that she wants to use her office to remove books, she uses her office to tell government officials under her to carry out her censorship agenda to remove books. The fact that a librarian under her refused to comply, and that we found out about the situation, is all mere fortunate accident. The problem is that this is who Palin is and this is what she wants to do, what she tries to do, the problem is that in most cases government officials and employees under her will carry out the removal of books or other "offending" content at her command, that this would go on and we would not even be told it's happening.
If you want to be "skeptical" about the concrete cause for the firing, fine. But it's irrelevant. It does not much diminish the problem with Palin here.
If you think it's fine and dandy to have librarians strip books off the shelves, then I say both you and Palin are the problem. Note that I am not accusing you of that, I just want to cut that road off ahead of time.
Libraries have limited budgets and have the unfortunate and difficult task of trying to get the most bang for the buck with that limited budget, the difficult task of what to put on to the shelves. Wanting to add everything, and being forced to prioritize selections for value and diversity. However it is a bad bad bad mentality that wants to run around stripping books off of library shelves. That kind of mentality is seriously bad, and it is seriously dangerous in high government officials. People who think it appropriate for them to use their office and the power of government to remove or ban books or other content that they don't want other people to have.
-
>Can we look forward to a Net with all the offensive stuff removed, or else?
because Internet == tax-funded library?
Because authoritarian censorship crusader == authoritarian censorship crusader.
Promoting that sort of authoritarian crusader politician to higher public office has the inevitable effect of increasing the scope and reach of their censorship-crusade.
Seriously, if she wants to abuse her government powers to keep dangerous or offensive books out of the Wassila public library, do you seriously doubt she's going to see the internet as far more dangerous and far more important to apply government control? All the little children can be damaged and corruped by all the naughty naughty pictures on the internet and all the dangerous dangerous offensive ideas on the internet. She just wants to help parents protect the wee little children against the evil evil people spewing filth and dangerous evil ideas on the internet.
-
Minor correction:
As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching Flat Earth Theory alongside evolution in public schools.
should read:
As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching Flat Earth Theory alongside the solar system in public schools.
Yeah, at best all of Palin's statements indicate she has no idea what she is talking about. And based on everything else I've learned about her, I don't think that best case theory applies here. She really is in favor of violating church and state to push her theology in science class, but she is smart enough and political enough to be selective in her statements and methods for pursuing her agenda. It would be like trying to directly pass a law outlawing abortion - it would result in complete legal failure and political failure. She knows damn well that she has to work around and carefully undermine laws she dislikes - laws that get in the way of what she believes right and good.
At best she is clueless and passively sympathetic to the anti-evolution conflict. Much more likely she damn well knows "teach-the-controversy" is the only legally and politically viable road for her to pursue her religious agenda in the schools.
There is no more a second scientific side to teach about evolution than there is a second scientific side to teach about chemistry or the solar system. Just because there is a social controversy and political controversy debating whether the-earth-goes-around-the-sun or whether the-sun-goes-around-the-earth does not mean there is any genuine scientific controversy. In science class there is no second side for any debate.
-
The problem here is that we're dealing with government primary and secondary schools, so no one can agree on what to teach with taxpayer money.
I suggest we stick to teaching the facts, to teaching an accurate factual presentation of scientific fields as understood and practiced by professionals in that field.
The indisputed fact is that, rounded to the nearest full percentage point, the understanding and practice of 100% of professional biologists is based on evolution. If you want to go to tenths-of-a-percent, it's 99.9% or maybe 99.8% of professional biologists who understand and practice their field based on evolution. You can find a roughly comparable number of people who reject solar fusion and instead claim the sun is powered by electricity. It would be a gross mis-education to give students any indication that electric-powered-sun in any way remotely represented the modern understanding or practice of any field of science.
Even if atoms and elements are wrong, it is a indisputable fact that the understanding and practice of chemistry is based on atom and element theory. It is impossible to get any understanding of modern chemistry, it is impossible to understand the modern practice of chemistry, if one does not learn atom and element theory. even if atoms theory and element theory are wrong, it is impossible to properly enter the field of chemistry to do credible science proving them wrong without first getting an education in atom theory and element theory.
It doesn't much matter if someone claims evolution is wrong, it doesn't matter if they want to dispute scientific facts. One cannot teach biology without teaching the the fact that evolution is the current understanding and practice of 100% of biology professionals.
The real solution to this problem is school choice, letting the parents decide where to send their children.
Parents are certainly free to teach kids anything they like, and they can certainly hire people to teach their kids whatever they like, however the government cannot proselytize a religion. Nor can the government hire someone to proselytize a religion.
If some parents have a religious belief that chemistry is wrong, they can certainly teach that to their kids. If parents want to pay a Madrassa (or some Christian version of a Madrassa) to teach anti-chemistry theology, they can certainly do so. However the government cannot run that Madrassa, nor can government pay to run that Madrassa.
"School choice" cannot be a cover for using the government to indoctrinate a religion. Government funds cannot be used to promote one religion above another or to oppress any religion, even if it is parent selecting which religion they want the government to promote (or oppress) for their particular child. Government funds to teach reading and writing and math and science cannot be diverted to indoctrinate a religion just because some reduced fraction of those monies may go math and other non-religious education.
Also, it would be quite improper for state governments to mandate curriculum for private schools, religious or not.
Right.
However the state government can certainly set minimum reading and math qualifications for a government-certified highschool diploma. The state government can certainly set minimum curriculum and minimum standards in science and other subjects for a state certified highschool diploma.
A private schools could entirely skip teaching math at all, or even skip teaching students how to read. Such schools can certainly issue their own diplomas and rely strictly upon their own reputation to uphold the value of those diplomas. Colleges and employers can then use their own discretion as to the value of a highschool diploma which fails to meet state certified minimal educational standards.
-
I guess what they really need to teach is reading comprehension... She said to teach it all and debate it.
Yeah, the scientifically criminal "teach the controversy" bullshit.
I mean seriously, what woulf you say if some candidate wanted to bring pro-astrology textbooks into astronomy science lessons and pro-alchemy textbooks into chemistry classrooms, in order to have teachers "teach the controversy"?
There is political controversy over evolution, there is social controversy over evolution, however there is no scientific controversy over evolution. You are suggesting we should bring in flat-earth textbooks into science class and "debate" the issue.
Lets take a concrete look at what we are talking about here, a concrete look at how your proposed education and "debate" would have to go:
It's science class, we teach what the Second law of thermodynamics says, and we teach what it means. We teach that the 2nd law of thermo says that the average entropy (disorder) of a closed system increases, or at best stays constant. We teach the significance of the word "average" in there - that it means that one party of the system can become more ordered if some other part of the system becomes even more disordered to "pay" for that increase in order. Then we also teach the meaning and importance of "a closed system", we teach that if outside energy comes into the system, that energy can be used to do work and can pay for the work to create an increase in order in the system. We then teach a variety of common examples where nature spontaneously produces order out of chaos. We show how a flowing river will automatically separate, sort, and organize different size pebbles. We cover how chaotic disordered water atoms automatically form into complex highly ordered snowflakes. We cover how the sun provides energy to do work on earth melting and forming snowflakes. We cover how energy from the sun can do work to increase order on earth, and how increases in order are *not* a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
We then "teach both sides" of the evolution issue.... we bring in a standard science textbook to teach evolution. Then then we bring in an anti-evolution textbook to teach "the other side". And in that anti-evolution textbook they present arguments such as "evolution is impossible because it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics". It teaches that evolution involves an increase in order and information, and it teaches that that is impossible according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
And then you let the students engage in a "debate" on the evolution issue.
And during that debate one student remembers the snowflake example, that student points out that the anti-evolution textbook is wrong for claiming that increases in order and complexity is impossible. Points out that the anti-evolution textbook was wrong in it's claimed proof against evolution. That student points out that the anti-evolution textbook did not correctly understand the science of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, points out that the anti-evolution textbook gets the science wrong. That the textbook is filled with errors and misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
Then a second student stands up to argue the other side. A student who did not understand the lesson on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That student misunderstands it and makes errors. That student presents an invalid argument filled with errors and misunderstandings.
You then give the first student an A and you flunk the second student.
That is how a "scientific debate" on evolution has to go in a legitimate science class. All of the "scientific" arguments against evolution are based on misunderstandings or ignorance errors or misrepresentations or the like.
A science classroom debate on evolution is no different than such a debate on chemistry. In science class they can only end the exact same way.
Also, many Christian schools do teach evolution as well. Some call it a the
At issue is the FCC's requirement that the winner offer free wireless broadband services in a portion of the spectrum, a move the wireless industry contends will lead to interference for 3G phone users.
Duh! Of course free wireless broadband is going to cause interference.
The FCC needs to immediately allow them to charge for it in order to prevent interference.
-
We're going to have these shared spaces where 2D and 3D people can interact.
We already have that here on Slashdot whenever an evolution-related story crops up.
-
I can increase your bust size
Slashdotters would never leave the house.
Oh, never mind, they never leave the house anyway.
-
It's GNU/Wino, damnit!
-
Nor are misdeeds limited to one political party.
Completely agreed.
Politics sucks. Both parties suck.
However it would be a fallacy to suggest that makes them equal.
Both parties can engage in misdeeds where the misdeeds of one party are comparatively rare and/or minor while the misdeeds of the other are comparatively common and/or more severe.
There's not one unified Republican body, nor one unified Democratic body.
Both parties do have a leadership and command structure, and both parties have state and local levels of leadership and control, and of course both parties are filled with volunteer workers and other individuals who can engage in individual rogue bad acts. So you are absolutely right that blame does not automatically go to the party as a whole. A party as a whole should not be condemned for the actions of a rogue individual, so long as it did not foster such behavior and it responds appropriately to condemn/terminate/prohibit such actions. The national level of a party should not be condemned for problems at the state or local level, and the state level should not be condemned for problems at the local level, if the higher level did not foster such actions by the lower level, and so long as the higher level responds appropriately to condemn/terminate/prohibit such actions by the lower levels.
We are talking here about a behavior that occurred in at least 53 congressional districts in 2006. And while 53 districts is only about 12% of all districts, it in fact represents a national systematic policy targeting contested races. Most races are forgone conclusions. Most races are known to be landslides for one party or the other. This "mere 12%", these 53 districts, in fact represent a systematic party policy of using dirty tactics to dishonestly tilt any race that might be close. They simply don't bother with such tactics in races they already know they can't win or can't lose.
We are talking here about behavior that has been going on for a decade or more.
Yes, it is completely appropriate to tag "the Republican party as a whole" for this. The national party gets intimately involved in contested races. It is beyond reason to suggest they did nothing to command or foster such activities across all of these contested national races, it is beyond reason to suggest they were unaware of such activities before or during them, and it is imposible to suggest they were unaware of them after the fact. Even going beyond all reason and granting the national party the most extreme benefit of the doubt, they at minimum knew-after-the-fact of such activities going on for a decade or more, and did nothing. Even granting the most extreme benefit of the doubt, the national party passively accepted such activities spreading to become the de-facto policy of the party as a whole.
And I assert that false-flag robocalls is merely one example of dishonest election tactics. Whether it comes down by command as Republican National Committee strategy, or if it is an endemic culture of dishonesty coming up from below and passively condoned by party leadership, the Republican party has a culture accepting dishonest win-by-any-means politics.
For example one main Republican strategy is a huge get-out-the-vote push with evangelicals. Which is perfectly legitimate. And the Democratic response to that is, in general, an attempt to reach out and win over some of those voters.
A main Democratic strategy is a huge drive to register and get out the minority and other disadvantaged vote. Which is perfectly legitimate. And the all-too-common Republican response to that is are malicious, dishonest, and often even outright illegal, voter suppression tactics. Yes, many of the most outrageous cases can be blamed on rogue individuals or the local level of the party, but it is way too common, and it is culturally tolerated or fostered, and yes, in some cases the National level gets directly involved instituting such activities or battling for them in cour
This is the real deal. This is not a test. For everyone thinking they can ride this storm out, I have news for you: that will be one of the biggest mistakes you can make in your life
almost as big as voting for Bush a second time.
-
Carter was actually referring to Obama as a child, whereas you're a racist shit floating in the human genepool.
That's the problem.
-