No, if you follow the story (and not just the article quoted), you'll see that the special interest group took over the school board before raising the sticker issue. Well over half of the board are directly associated with creationist groups.
Only _after_ they'd taken over the board did the creationists organise the public outcry. And that's why they did it there, rather than somewhere else.
The Catholic Church is no longer a "strict-interpretation" religion. Part of this is that it doesn't have a single edition of the Bible to point at - instead, they have several translations which differ to some degree. Probably their biggest turning point in becoming more liberal was when they stopped using Latin for everything. Having to cope with different cultures makes the Catholic church far more wordly than any other. They've really come a long way since the times of Galileo (who, of course, the Catholic church prosecuted).
Many Protestants (but far from a majority), however, are "strict-word-of-God" types. The Bible being the literal word of God, and all that. The edition they usually pick is the King James Bible, with its "translated by prayer" nature (other editions are usually treated as subservient or introductory). This introduces a high degree of fundamentalism.
Ironically, this attribute is one they share with the Islamic fundamentalists. And for the same reason - both groups have only one holy book (and one version thereof) that they work from.
(The sad thing about the King James Bible is that it's full of translation errors; apologists for it usually point out that the Latin bibles used as a basis were themselves translations, and that the power of prayer meant that the "errors" in the King James Bible are actually corrections)
*sigh* It's not the fact that evolution is a theory that's the problem. It's the fact that the sticker is on a science book with dozens of other likely-but-not-certain theories. None of them are called into question. Thus, a single theory has been singled out for the purposes of advancing a religious argument. And _that_ was what was deemed illegal.
If the sticker was on a book solely about evolution, it would have been more likely to be okay. If it had been more generally worded, talking about the scientific process in general, that would probably have been okay as well.
Besides, science admits that spontaneous generation happened in the past
And it attempts to explain it - it doesn't just say that some supernatural being created us.
There are good and credible theories explaining how organic life, with its tendancy towards increasing complexity, can come about. Futhermore, the key ingredient (self-replicating crystals) have been reproduced under laboratory experiments. It turns out, in fact, that we probably came from clay.
Science is about the things we _can_ know and attempt to explain based around our knowledge. It doesn't require belief - in fact, it's largely a defence against belief in the face of contradictory facts.
Faith, OTH, is about the things we can't (yet) know. Unfortunately, as what we know grows over time, it starts to conflict with the faith that occupied that spot earlier.
Personally, I prefer to say "I dunno" and move on.
The article made it clear: the judge decided that it was an explicit attack on evolution (because it didn't mention any other theories), and had religious motives. Thus, this violated the seperation of church and state by intent.
A general warning about how the scientific method works, and the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a fact, would be different.
Oh, and for fairness, I would like to see a similar sticker on the Bible.:)
Who says it has to be robotic? What's wrong with remote controlled?
Three seconds to get a signal to the Moon and back. Okay, your reaction time is going to be crap, but as long as you are patient and take it easy, remote control would be fine.
Heck, with some VR and computer power, you could probably simulate the three seconds ahead required to effectively eliminate the delay for most routine tasks.
This would be sufficent to establish an industrial complex whilst a more self-sufficent base is established.
Yes, but white sandy beaches occur where there is a high percentage of dissolved silicates; the white sand is actually the precipated silicates from the water (which is why it has such a smooth and regular structure).
Hate to say it, but they are apparently as impossible to reason with as Islamic terrorists.
The reason is the same: religous fundamentalism. Christian fundamentalists are as bad as Islamic ones, and probably even nastier (the Koran is a more compassionate text than the Bible, believe it or don't).
Mmmmmmmmm... can't wait to see creationism as a required educational topic, with evolution being the "local option" selection.
And remember: the Earth was created at 9am, October 23, 4004BC. Which means the Earth is a Libra.
'cept that in some areas, at least, silicates aren't scarce. Think: sand is mostly silicates.
Of course, turning those pristine white holiday beaches first a rusty red (from the iron) then a lovely sticky green (from the algae) won't go down very well.
They could start by voting against any bill they haven't had the time to figure out yet. This might encourage the drafters of a bill to make their intentions a little plainer.
Volcanic emmissions aren't eruptions, AC... eruptions are the result of emissions which aren't released. For every active volcano that is letting its emissions out, there's a dozen or so "dormant" volcanoes that aren't. When they go, they tend to release about a couple of millenia worth of emissions in a few days.
Grow a brain and learn how to have a discussion without insulting people. Oh, and my eyes are green.
There is no question that human activity has resulted in increased carbon dioxide levels.
Of course, we don't emit as much CO2 now as was done in the mid-12th century (aka "the Little Ice Age"); over a period of about 50 years, it got so cold that about 75% of the Black Forest was cut down, reducing it to smaller than its current size. All of that went up in smoke.
And we don't emit as much in a year as a good size active volcano can do in a week. But we do emit enough to cause CO2 levels to rise.
Of course, the link to changes in _climate_ from increased CO2 levels isn't really clear. Global warming is the common concern, but the opposite has just as much evidence, and there's even a lot to show that any effect either way will simply cause a negative feedback loop to stop it. Nobody really knows, because climate studies are a real bitch to figure out.
Of the two, an iceage is probably more likely than warming, anyway; we're overdue for one, and the sun appears to be going into another contraction cycle (which means less heat coming in). And frankly, the Earth spends most of its time as a snowball; the nice weather we get these days is purely an aberation that will correct itself over time.
Slashdot Mirror
No, if you follow the story (and not just the article quoted), you'll see that the special interest group took over the school board before raising the sticker issue. Well over half of the board are directly associated with creationist groups.
Only _after_ they'd taken over the board did the creationists organise the public outcry. And that's why they did it there, rather than somewhere else.
I happily defer to superior knowledge.
The school board didn't have a "flaming bag of dogshit" tossed at them; they put it their themselves.
The school board itself is comprised of the special interest group you mention.
The Catholic Church is no longer a "strict-interpretation" religion. Part of this is that it doesn't have a single edition of the Bible to point at - instead, they have several translations which differ to some degree. Probably their biggest turning point in becoming more liberal was when they stopped using Latin for everything. Having to cope with different cultures makes the Catholic church far more wordly than any other. They've really come a long way since the times of Galileo (who, of course, the Catholic church prosecuted).
Many Protestants (but far from a majority), however, are "strict-word-of-God" types. The Bible being the literal word of God, and all that. The edition they usually pick is the King James Bible, with its "translated by prayer" nature (other editions are usually treated as subservient or introductory). This introduces a high degree of fundamentalism.
Ironically, this attribute is one they share with the Islamic fundamentalists. And for the same reason - both groups have only one holy book (and one version thereof) that they work from.
(The sad thing about the King James Bible is that it's full of translation errors; apologists for it usually point out that the Latin bibles used as a basis were themselves translations, and that the power of prayer meant that the "errors" in the King James Bible are actually corrections)
*sigh* It's not the fact that evolution is a theory that's the problem. It's the fact that the sticker is on a science book with dozens of other likely-but-not-certain theories. None of them are called into question. Thus, a single theory has been singled out for the purposes of advancing a religious argument. And _that_ was what was deemed illegal.
If the sticker was on a book solely about evolution, it would have been more likely to be okay. If it had been more generally worded, talking about the scientific process in general, that would probably have been okay as well.
And it attempts to explain it - it doesn't just say that some supernatural being created us.
There are good and credible theories explaining how organic life, with its tendancy towards increasing complexity, can come about. Futhermore, the key ingredient (self-replicating crystals) have been reproduced under laboratory experiments. It turns out, in fact, that we probably came from clay.
Faith begins where science ends.
Science is about the things we _can_ know and attempt to explain based around our knowledge. It doesn't require belief - in fact, it's largely a defence against belief in the face of contradictory facts.
Faith, OTH, is about the things we can't (yet) know. Unfortunately, as what we know grows over time, it starts to conflict with the faith that occupied that spot earlier.
Personally, I prefer to say "I dunno" and move on.
Evidence, every time. Eye witnesses are highly overrated, and only liked because of their ability to sway a jury.
The article made it clear: the judge decided that it was an explicit attack on evolution (because it didn't mention any other theories), and had religious motives. Thus, this violated the seperation of church and state by intent.
:)
A general warning about how the scientific method works, and the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a fact, would be different.
Oh, and for fairness, I would like to see a similar sticker on the Bible.
That's why I use Eclipse for developing and Ant for producing builds. They can live side by side.
Who says it has to be robotic? What's wrong with remote controlled?
Three seconds to get a signal to the Moon and back. Okay, your reaction time is going to be crap, but as long as you are patient and take it easy, remote control would be fine.
Heck, with some VR and computer power, you could probably simulate the three seconds ahead required to effectively eliminate the delay for most routine tasks.
This would be sufficent to establish an industrial complex whilst a more self-sufficent base is established.
Because we can (apparently) build this now. A catapult on the moon is a long way off.
One of the biggest costs of construction is the walls and other _structural_ materials.
Lunar rock can be used for that quite effectively. You don't need to make a space station out of steel and aluminium, you know.
Yes, but white sandy beaches occur where there is a high percentage of dissolved silicates; the white sand is actually the precipated silicates from the water (which is why it has such a smooth and regular structure).
"My guess is that society in general lives like a bunch of slowly boiling frogs"
Studies with frogs have shown they will jump out of the pot before the water gets to a damaging level. They're not that stupid. Unlike people.
The reason is the same: religous fundamentalism. Christian fundamentalists are as bad as Islamic ones, and probably even nastier (the Koran is a more compassionate text than the Bible, believe it or don't).
Mmmmmmmmm... can't wait to see creationism as a required educational topic, with evolution being the "local option" selection.
And remember: the Earth was created at 9am, October 23, 4004BC. Which means the Earth is a Libra.
'cept that in some areas, at least, silicates aren't scarce. Think: sand is mostly silicates.
Of course, turning those pristine white holiday beaches first a rusty red (from the iron) then a lovely sticky green (from the algae) won't go down very well.
Um, a live tally is based on the counted votes, which always starts after the votes close. That's why it's a live _tally_.
But Europa didn't have the monilith either. It was selected as the best candidate for life, which in Saturn's orbit would have been Titan. :)
In "2010", and in the movie, the monolith is near Io, not Europa.
They could start by voting against any bill they haven't had the time to figure out yet. This might encourage the drafters of a bill to make their intentions a little plainer.
But if he'd stuck to the plot line he'd outlined in 2001 the book, it would have been Titan.
The book had Discovery going to Saturn; it was the movie that sent it to Jupiter, and Clarke decided to stick to the movie.
Volcanic emmissions aren't eruptions, AC... eruptions are the result of emissions which aren't released. For every active volcano that is letting its emissions out, there's a dozen or so "dormant" volcanoes that aren't. When they go, they tend to release about a couple of millenia worth of emissions in a few days.
Grow a brain and learn how to have a discussion without insulting people. Oh, and my eyes are green.
Yes, but that's normal volcanic activity. Eruptions, however, produce significantly more. Of course, they are less common.
Krakatoa, for example, put out enough CO2 and ash when it blew up to effectively prevent summer that year.
In a normal year, yes... but volcanos don't erupt every year.
A decent size volcanic eruption emits a lot more carbon dioxide than human activities does.
There is no question that human activity has resulted in increased carbon dioxide levels.
Of course, we don't emit as much CO2 now as was done in the mid-12th century (aka "the Little Ice Age"); over a period of about 50 years, it got so cold that about 75% of the Black Forest was cut down, reducing it to smaller than its current size. All of that went up in smoke.
And we don't emit as much in a year as a good size active volcano can do in a week. But we do emit enough to cause CO2 levels to rise.
Of course, the link to changes in _climate_ from increased CO2 levels isn't really clear. Global warming is the common concern, but the opposite has just as much evidence, and there's even a lot to show that any effect either way will simply cause a negative feedback loop to stop it. Nobody really knows, because climate studies are a real bitch to figure out.
Of the two, an iceage is probably more likely than warming, anyway; we're overdue for one, and the sun appears to be going into another contraction cycle (which means less heat coming in). And frankly, the Earth spends most of its time as a snowball; the nice weather we get these days is purely an aberation that will correct itself over time.