As a corporate recruiter, I can tell you that counting with stable employment in your resume is a big deal. Hopping around jobs makes you, well, a Job Hopper. Job Hoppers are one of the big "no-no's" when presenting candidates, and it speaks of an unstable individual with no long term plans or strategies to move up in the ladder, someone that is not willing to stick around and fight, and someone with no loyalty for the companies he works for. I can tell you straight up that even if they do hire you, the HR dept. WILL tag you as a jobhopp and that will have an effect on how much the company is willing to invest in you. Investment, for example, in making you a Manager, when you might as well leave with the management experience under your belt two years after they promoted you and leave them with the same hole they had two years ago.
In any case, for career advancement it is ALWAYS better to keep the phrase "STABLE EMPLOYMENT" in mind before making a decision. Employees that understand that the company's time is not the same as the employee's time, and that even if 5 years seem like an eternity to you its not that much for a company are very appreciated. Besides, it raises the issue of seniority: When competing with another internal candidate for a managerial position, seniority will be one of the key facts to analize.
Also, there are very important industry certifications that might bump you up a lot. For example:
PMP/PMI
ITIL Foundation
Six Sigma
CISM (VERY sought after, and a big Search String in the recruiting business within IT)
Okay. Heres the thing.
Science does not claim that evolution is a perfect or flawless theory. Science does not work that way. As someone said before, its the most viable solution with the evidence so far.
Of course, it should be tought to students that there are holes in the theory, but teaching creationism as an "opposing scientific theory" doesnt fit the definition.
We can see this by a very basic propierty of science declared by Karl Popper that can de very usefull (Any spanish speakers could help here? Need literal translation for the word "Falsable"). This is that every scientific theory has to be possibly refutable. If we say that an unseen force has created life, but that we, living mortals will never be able to see the traces of this unseen force in facts there is no possible evidence that can refute this.
True or lie comes down to a matter of this "can his be possibly a lie?". Every declared truth that can be taken into account MUST have a chance of being false. For example, I say planets are square. I see a planet, its round, im refuted.
But, then i say "oh, planets are square, but a massive alucination that all live entities in the universe suffer causes planets to be percibed as round". Okay, I just said planets are round, with a different wording that makes me sound less wrong.
The case with creationism is the same. They might be right, but, then if i say that the entity that created life had the chain of cause-reaction set up for life to be =TRUE eons ago, at the big bang, i cannot be refuted, so it does not matter. I can say God, i can say a giant spaghetti monster, i can say that a previous incarnation of Al Gore created the universe. IT DOES NOT MATTER, because it is a fact that is not open for debate. If we start teaching things that cannot be possibly refuted or questioned, we are not teaching, we are dictating, and that is what matters.
God is not questionable, because you can allways go one step higher. It is a matter of who surrenders first. Yes, no, yes, no, yes, no.
If evolution is refuted tomorrow, rest assured, it will fall and crumble into ashes. God cannot be refuted, and this is no proof that he exists, but is no refutation either.
And we must remember that other holes in science are also overlooked. Gravity essentialy does not work, and quantum theory does not work either, when they are put together (Now with string theory thats about to change, or not, who knows, if a graviton banishes into another dimension then yes.), and we ARE teaching gravity in school Why? because it can predict facts in a pretty solid way. When "Intelligent design" can predict something better than evolution, well come back and take a look.
Slashdot Mirror
As a corporate recruiter, I can tell you that counting with stable employment in your resume is a big deal. Hopping around jobs makes you, well, a Job Hopper. Job Hoppers are one of the big "no-no's" when presenting candidates, and it speaks of an unstable individual with no long term plans or strategies to move up in the ladder, someone that is not willing to stick around and fight, and someone with no loyalty for the companies he works for. I can tell you straight up that even if they do hire you, the HR dept. WILL tag you as a jobhopp and that will have an effect on how much the company is willing to invest in you. Investment, for example, in making you a Manager, when you might as well leave with the management experience under your belt two years after they promoted you and leave them with the same hole they had two years ago. In any case, for career advancement it is ALWAYS better to keep the phrase "STABLE EMPLOYMENT" in mind before making a decision. Employees that understand that the company's time is not the same as the employee's time, and that even if 5 years seem like an eternity to you its not that much for a company are very appreciated. Besides, it raises the issue of seniority: When competing with another internal candidate for a managerial position, seniority will be one of the key facts to analize. Also, there are very important industry certifications that might bump you up a lot. For example: PMP/PMI ITIL Foundation Six Sigma CISM (VERY sought after, and a big Search String in the recruiting business within IT)
Okay. Heres the thing. Science does not claim that evolution is a perfect or flawless theory. Science does not work that way. As someone said before, its the most viable solution with the evidence so far. Of course, it should be tought to students that there are holes in the theory, but teaching creationism as an "opposing scientific theory" doesnt fit the definition. We can see this by a very basic propierty of science declared by Karl Popper that can de very usefull (Any spanish speakers could help here? Need literal translation for the word "Falsable"). This is that every scientific theory has to be possibly refutable. If we say that an unseen force has created life, but that we, living mortals will never be able to see the traces of this unseen force in facts there is no possible evidence that can refute this. True or lie comes down to a matter of this "can his be possibly a lie?". Every declared truth that can be taken into account MUST have a chance of being false. For example, I say planets are square. I see a planet, its round, im refuted. But, then i say "oh, planets are square, but a massive alucination that all live entities in the universe suffer causes planets to be percibed as round". Okay, I just said planets are round, with a different wording that makes me sound less wrong. The case with creationism is the same. They might be right, but, then if i say that the entity that created life had the chain of cause-reaction set up for life to be =TRUE eons ago, at the big bang, i cannot be refuted, so it does not matter. I can say God, i can say a giant spaghetti monster, i can say that a previous incarnation of Al Gore created the universe. IT DOES NOT MATTER, because it is a fact that is not open for debate. If we start teaching things that cannot be possibly refuted or questioned, we are not teaching, we are dictating, and that is what matters. God is not questionable, because you can allways go one step higher. It is a matter of who surrenders first. Yes, no, yes, no, yes, no. If evolution is refuted tomorrow, rest assured, it will fall and crumble into ashes. God cannot be refuted, and this is no proof that he exists, but is no refutation either. And we must remember that other holes in science are also overlooked. Gravity essentialy does not work, and quantum theory does not work either, when they are put together (Now with string theory thats about to change, or not, who knows, if a graviton banishes into another dimension then yes.), and we ARE teaching gravity in school Why? because it can predict facts in a pretty solid way. When "Intelligent design" can predict something better than evolution, well come back and take a look.