Tennessee Bill Helps Teachers Challenge Evolution 735
sciencehabit writes "In a 70-28 vote yesterday, the Tennessee House of Representatives passed HB 368 (PDF), a bill that encourages science teachers to explore controversial topics without fear of reprisal. Critics say the measure will enable K-12 teachers to present intelligent design and creationism as acceptable alternatives to evolution in the classroom. If the bill passes, Tennessee would join Louisiana as the second state to have specific 'protection' for the teaching of evolution in the classroom."
My school prayer (Score:5, Insightful)
I pray that the day after this law passes, a biology teacher somewhere in the state walks into his classroom and spends the entire day showing how the fossil record contradicts the silly Genesis story in the Bible--knowing he's now protected by a law that says his principal and angry parents can't do jackshit to stop him.
Re:My school prayer (Score:5, Insightful)
I pray that the day after this law passes, a biology teacher somewhere in the state walks into his classroom and spends the entire day showing how the fossil record contradicts the silly Genesis story in the Bible--knowing he's now protected by a law that says his principal and angry parents can't do jackshit to stop him.
That's how I read this language: a teacher could, just as easily, discuss Darwinian Evolution or any other of the various scientific topics usually slandered by the Religious Right without any fear of reprisal. The bill doesn't seem to force the discussion, and so is not the issue. If any beef were to arise from it, I'd point my finger at the "science" teacher.
Re: (Score:3)
Even for Tennessee, that is going a bit far.
Re: (Score:3)
Race is a social construct. This is junior high school level stuff. Should have stayed in school, man.
Re:My school prayer (Score:5, Informative)
While I can't speak for Intelligent Design, Creationism is not thought of as Science period. Rather, it is an ideology behind how to choose ones assumptions when applied to Science. The fact that a Creationist Scientist chooses to use the assumption that the Earth is young enough to use one side of an equation (non-stable elements) when using Carbon Dating vs. a non-Creationist Scientist choosing to use the assumption that the Earth is old enough to use the other side of the equation (stable elements) is thereby evidenced; and has nothing to do with the validity of the Science behind it; just a different set of assumptions. Creationist Scientists - when allowed to be - are usually more up front about those assumptions too.
In other words, it's a challenge of the underlying assumptions behind the Science - assumptions that are not necessarily scientifically testable. (And yes, I'm aware of the various loops in the dating process; the above is just an example of how one might choose different assumptions. Nothing more.)
Dude. You're just plain confused. Or incoherent. Or both.
Creationism isn't science, but it has been promoted as such by creationists, because they wanted to get it taught in school science classes.
They failed. Because it really, really isn't science, and courts agreed that creationists were being duplicitous liars in trying to depict it as such. It's religion.
Intelligent Design is warmed-over "Creation Science". It was and is nothing more than an attempt to repackage creationism under a new name, hoping nobody would notice it still isn't science and still has no place in a science class. The very same people and institutions which tried to shove "creation science" down the public's throat are behind ID, and they swear up and down that ID has nothing to do with creationism. (What was that about "creation scientists" being open about their assumptions again? We have decades of evidence showing that they try mightily to hide them, lest the public realize what they're really trying to do.)
You're right about one thing - creationism is a challenge to the underpinnings of science. But it's not a challenge to something that's testable. Rather, it's a challenge to the foundational idea that the universe can be empirically tested. Instead of examining it, creationism insists that God did it and tells us to shut up and go home, it's all over, you can't learn anything more.
Well, I'm sorry sir, but science didn't stop at the prescribed boundaries, and scientists learned that your holy book doesn't tell the true story of the history of the planet. And no, that's not just a matter of picking one unprovable assumption over another.
If you're young, don't blindly trust the lies your elder "creationist scientists" are telling you about real science. For example, as a consequence of their indoctrination, you have negative knowledge about how carbon dating works. You're not just wrong, you're not even on the same planet as wrong. "Loops"? Arbitrary choice of one side of an equation over another, where one side is "stable elements" and the other is "unstable elements"? Apparently you don't even know math, because if you did you'd know that equations have no meaning without both sides. Furthermore, radiometric dating as done by real scientists is about examining the proportion of unstable isotopes to their decay products (typically stable), or (in the case of carbon dating of plant or animal fossils) the proportion of the unstable to stable carbon isotopes. There is no arbitrary choice of a side involved. Unstable and stable elements are not somehow in opposition to one another. The only "assumption" involved is that nuclear physics works and can be used to analyze the meaning of isotope and decay product ratios, and we don't exactly need to go on faith for that. (Here's a slight hint: it's part of the very same physics used to design nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs.)
Realize also that probably ever
Re:My school prayer (Score:5, Insightful)
spends the entire day showing how the fossil record contradicts the silly Genesis story in the Bible
The fossil record does no such thing, and pseudo-scientists waste a lot of time tilting at windmills.
The Genesis story is a lot of things, but scientific theory it is not. It is of no merit to try to disprove it by scientific method.
Let it have its place in the discipline of Theology. I went to a religious school and this is where it was studied. This, or in a more general cultural historical discipline, is where it belongs.
There are so many important things in the world which are being sidelined by astroturfed spats. Once bread and circuses were sufficient. Now the population is moderately educated, so we need bread, circuses and engineered pointless debate (see also: abortion, tea party, gun control).
Re:My school prayer (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that's true up to the point where some nutjob starts insisting that everything in the Bible is the literal truth, and that therefore Genesis is true, and evolution doesn't happen.
At this point the nutjob is putting his beliefs forward as a scientific theory, be it ever so lacking in foundation, and a certain amount of windmill-tilting is then unfortunately required.
And when the nutjobs of the world make a co-ordinated attempt to have their nutjobbery taught to children as being respectable science, then those windmills start taking on the characteristics of actual giants, and tilting at them becomes rather important.
I will concede that the process does indeed waste a lot of time. However, in general it isn't the scientists who kick off the fight.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be confusing anthropology and theology.
Theology is the study of the nature of God, or alternatively what God says about God.
Religion studied in class is anthropology-- the study of man, or what man says about God.
Studying theology seriously generally implies your belief that there is, in fact a God; otherwise you are wasting your time.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the fossil record only contradicts the literal reading of a 6000 year old earth with special creation of each type of animal, literal world-wide flood, etc.
You might be surprised to learn how many people believe the Genesis story is literally true. http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/10/genesis_held_to_be_literally_t.php [scienceblogs.com]
taninim (Score:5, Informative)
No part of a story about the world being created some 6 thousand years ago by a magical sky wizard adds up to dinosaurs that were around millions and billions of years ago.
According to creationists, the large reptile/bird creatures we call "dinosaurs" were called taninim (sing. tanin) by the ancient Hebrews. Some dinosaurs, those too big to fit in a 450 by 75 by 45 foot barge built under the direction of Noah Lamechson, died in the great flood of 1656 Anno Mundi. Smaller ones, such as the velociraptor Deinonychus famous from Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton [wikipedia.org], may have been hunted to death before the flood. Still other creatures were aquatic, such as the plesiosaur (one of the possibilities for Heb. leviathan), but could not adapt to the post-flood composition of seawater. As for fossil records and radioisotope dating, young-Earth creationists have their own theories on how the flood interferes with those.
Re:My school prayer (Score:4, Informative)
I see the smiley, but I think this raises an interesting point. When you cite Euclid, you are citing truths that can be reproduced and verified. Or in one case, disproven. In any event, it doesn't require anything to be taken on faith.
Now when it's possible to sit at home with a blank universe and say "Let there be light", that's when the Bible gains equal credibility in scientific matters. Assuming the data can be replicated, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My school prayer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If just one teacher in each school would use it to fight against the bible-thumpers, and their attempt to hijack science for their own ends, it would be worth it. Because that would be enough to show them that these kind of cynical laws, passed by politicians only interested in pandering to their religious fanatic voters, can just as easily be turned and used against your beloved religious beliefs.
Re: (Score:3)
[Republican convention in Denver 2008, former pastor of Grave Evangelical Free Church Arnold Conrad]
Arnold Conrad: "There are millions of people around this world praying to their god — whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that [McCain’s] opponent wins, for a variety of reasons
Re: (Score:3)
That is a sad, sad statistic.
So, greater than 50% of science teachers in the US don't actually believe in science?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
not observable or repeatable
In that case, it's just like your religion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which would put them on equal footing, wouldn't it?
Well except for the volumes and volumes of data that show species changing over time from the fossil record. Religion just has 'a book that says so' for its evidence. So not exactly 'equal' footing.
Lets also take into account that the biblical scholars say the world is just a few thousand years old. Except that the volume of evidence for evolution clearly shows that the world is *billions* of years old.
Re:And I pray the opposite... (Score:4, Interesting)
I can not *prove* God exists any more than you can *prove* that God does not exist.
Actually, no, I don't have to prove he doesn't exist. He simply doesn't until you prove he does. There's no impasse here other than your (or anyone's) inability to prove what they believe.
If you don't see the connection between blind faith in something that can't be proven in any fashion, and Charles Manson's delusional followers, well I think we're done here. You can't have one without the other no matter how much you protest.
Re:And I pray the opposite... (Score:4, Interesting)
if I'm wrong and have deluded myself into belief in a lie for my life, there's no consequence to my belief other than I've followed a lie. I am doing no harm to my fellow man.
You may not be, but plenty of other 'religious' folk seem quite hell bent on imposing their views on the rest of the world. So yes I attribute that to anyone who supports that idea. You can't have one without the other.
TO you it is the same as believing in Santa...to me it is a part of who I am.
I assert that to a 5 yr old it is quite definitely part of who they are as well.
I'm willing to revise my opinions based on evidence, and to date I have found no evidence that God does not exist.
This is the very definition of 'science' that I am in favor of. Having 'evidence' drive things, not fantastical belief systems with no supporting evidence. You seem to agree with me on this point.
And I stand by the concept that as a general rule, athiests seem to have a serious problem accepting that religious people have their beliefs, and feel the need to mock and belittle those with faith for their faith.
I heartily disagree with you. The whole point of the article was about the religious pushing their views onto others. Religious history is literally rife with them pushing their beliefs onto others. Atheists and my ilk object heartily to being forced to accommodate in our lives the beliefs of others that are clearly not based on factual evidence. Again something you say you agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And I pray the opposite... (Score:4, Informative)
But it *has* been observed. You've heard of antibiotic resistant bacteria, right?
Re: (Score:3)
From Dictionary.com
Evolution: Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
Honestly, what are you talking about? I think the bigger problem is that opponents don't know what it is. Case in point.
Re: (Score:3)
A) Mutation is part of evolution and
B) Speciation has been observed anyway
even evolutions supporters dont know what it is.
Neither do you.
Re: (Score:3)
Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.
If a mutation survives and spreads through the population, that's evolution by definition.
I don't know what you think evolution is. A chimpanzee giving birth to a human? Pikachu evolving into Raichu?
Re:And I pray the opposite... (Score:5, Informative)
It is both observable and has been repeated in many experiments.
Some of them are not even experiments per se: see antibiotics and bacteria.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately those proofs were not evolutionary but crossbreeding chuckles.
Re:And I pray the opposite... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And I pray the opposite... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
There's no such thing as 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' there's evolution.
What, precisely do you mean by 'gained information'. We're talking random chance coupled to fitness here. If someone throws a die and it lands on 6 five times in a row, has 'information been gained'? When a population of copper-tolerant grasses evolves that manages to live on mine spoil tips, is information gained? Antibiotic resistance in bacteria? The ability for a flu virus to mutate and survive in humans?
Re:And I pray the opposite... (Score:5, Informative)
Genetic information CAN be gained... but even if it couldn't, it wouldn't matter. The amoeba... one of the "simplest" forms of life, has one of the largest observed genomes to date.
Simply through mutation of existing genetic information, the passing of it through sexual and non-sexual reproduction we can observe (yes OBSERVE) changes in genotype and phenotype.
Re:And I pray the opposite... (Score:4, Informative)
Down's syndrome is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome. THAT is additional genetic information right there.
Just because YOU can't figure out how an organism can gain information (and likely this is because you don't know enough about biology) doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
That is the basis of intelligent design. "I can't figure out how it could happen, that means that it doesn't - And no... I refuse to learn more so that I might be able to figure it out". That's fundamentally the basis of irreducible complexity - I can't figure it out the evolutionary mechanism, therefore it must have been designed. It's sad because others DO... and every example of irreducible complexity offered up by the ID community has plausible processes by which they could have evolved.
Re: (Score:3)
A duplicate of the same information allows you to have additional information through mutation IN ADDITION to the current existing genotype.
So you have one copy of a book... the original book remains the same, but then mutations occur in the copy... which lead to favorable or unfavorable traits IN ADDITION to the traits of the original book. This is the very essence of evolution.
Re: (Score:3)
Evolution does NOT happen within a single organism during its lifetime. A fish isn't born a fish and then some time while it's alive, become another species. It happens progressively through generations. So while (in my Down's Syndrome example) the first person may have an exact copy of chromosome 21, t
Re:And I pray the opposite... (Score:4, Funny)
So you have stupid friends. All that tells me is that your friendships are unintelligently designed.
As for your inability to realize what a "theory is", please test your god by jumping off a goddam cliff. That'll show that theory of gravity (or, more exactly, *theories* of gravity. Be sure to deny all of them on your way down.) Oh, and be sure to take your Bible, so it can go thump one last time.
Who mod'ed that up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who mod'ed that up?
It makes the same old mistake that we see every time this topic comes up.
A scientific theory is NOT the same as a "theory".
A scientific theory is NEVER "proven".
A scientific theory can only be shown to be flawed.
You are 100% wrong.
Re:And I pray the opposite... (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy you're responding to is wrong, but nowhere near as wrong as you. If you're stupid enough to say things like "evolution is a theory which has yet to be proven", you're probably not worth wasting time on, but what the hell:
First of all, evolution and intelligent design aren't mutually exclusive. It's quite possible that some type of "creator" - whether it be a guy with a beard, or a black monolith - created life on earth. However, that in no way contradicts the fact that all life on earth is related, and that both the geological and genetic record prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that all present-day species are descended from common ancestors. As long as your idea of "intelligent design" doesn't posit a magic-man who's constantly tweaking things, there's nothing contradictory between intelligent design and evolution.
Where intelligent design fails is a whole different issue. For starters, it posits no testable hypothesis. It offers no evidence. It attempts to put an end to further discussion and discovery, rather than opening new avenues of exploration. The phrase "god dun it" is not an answer - it's an appeal to ignorance. The same 'answer' has been used for tens of thousands of years to explain anything that we as a species couldn't understand. Why do we have lightning? God dun it. Why does the earth shake? God dun it. Why is there a flood? God dun it. In EVERY SINGLE PAST CASE, it was scientific scrutiny and the curiosity of man which eventually gave us a real answer, while the religious troglodytes continued to pound their holy books and point at their invisible dude in the sky. In every single case, the religious 'answer' was wrong. What possible combination of neural misfiring could convince you that, in this case, your answer happens to be right? And why would you EVER be satisfied with an answer that doesn't lead you to new questions?
Re: (Score:3)
And I agree that it isn't worth wasting much time on it, but alas, when I see idiots using religions or anti religious rants to support or deconstruct another, I feel compelled to call out the biggest idiot of the bunch.
I think you must have been reading a different set of comments then. Regardless, I can waste a couple minutes on you.
There is no genetic record that include genetic evidence only that points to this. There is however, a record that included non-genetic evidence to lead people to believe this.
Speak English, please.
Short and simple, what if God or a god dun it?
Then provide some evidence to support that hypothesis. What if Santa Claus dun it? What if Bigfoot dun it? What if Yo Mama dun it? The time to believe a claim is when it is sufficiently supported by evidence. Until that time it's all bullshit, and what-if scenarios don't make it any more credible. If your "explanation" is indistinguishable from something I just ma
Re: (Score:3)
Horseshit. Evolution has been observed as new species happen, and the fossil record is pretty clear on how it has worked from the past. We don't know every detail for every species, but to say evolution has yet to be proven is at best disingenuous, and at worst an outright lie.
Except, there is no evidence to support intelligent design in any meaningful way othe
Re: (Score:3)
Evolution is a theory which has yet to be proven
Congratulations on not knowing anything at all about science. Theories are never proven, only disproven.
Intelligent design does not predicate a deity.
Wait, what? What is the designer then, if not a deity?
Re:And I pray the opposite... (Score:5, Informative)
I pray that a teacher will actually question the so called science of evolution, as something not observable or repeatable.
Vaccine resistance.
That, in a nutshell, is the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is exactly why "Intelligent Design" or "Creationism" is NOT a science and should NEVER be taught in a science class.
Science requires that any hypothesis or theory be falsifiable. At least in theory. It may be impossible to perform the experiment to falsify it.
With non-science, there is no way to falsify it.
If the experiment shows A, then the creator wanted it to.
If the experiment shows B, then the creator wanted it to.
Since it is not science, it should not be taught (even as a "controversy") in a science class.
Leave it in the social sciences / philosophy classes.
Re: (Score:3)
In the interest of open dialog that truly allows learning and discovery, I pray the opposite of you. I pray that a teacher will actually question the so called science of evolution, as something not observable or repeatable.
Can't tell if trolling....
or just very stupid....
Re:And I pray the opposite... (Score:5, Informative)
OK, let's suppose you're not trolling and you're not unwilling to challenge your own views. Not unreasonable assumptions, so watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI [youtube.com]
And that's based on objective machines (DNA sequencers and computers comparing the sequences). The link is highly recommended for schools and teachers.
That means no Adam, no garden of eden, no eternal sin, no Jesus dying for our sins.
Bert
I don't think you understand. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it isn't.
But it IS "an either-or proposition" if you insist on a LITERAL interpretation of The Bible.
You can be religious and understand/accept evolution and understand that "The Garden of Eden" was a parable.
You CANNOT believe that The Garden of Eden was a physical location on Earth and understand/accept evolution.
Not without some serious mental gymnastics about a trickster god.
That is what "literal" means. (Score:3)
I think you do not understand what "literal" means in this context.
Believing that The Garden of Eden was a place on Earth inhabited by Adam and Eve who were tempted blah blah blah is a literal interpretation of The Bible.
Then you do NOT subscribe to a literal interpretation. It's that easy.
Re:And I pray the opposite... (Score:5, Interesting)
You can be religious and think ID is a bunch of hooey. This isn't an either-or proposition.
True.
But what happens when someone moves from absolutely believing that the Bible is an infallible document that is absolutely the correct un-tainted word of God, to discovering that it's full of errors, omissions, inconsistencies, and has been changed in thousands of places over time.
Changes that are both accidental and intentional. Changes made for reasons both innocent and manipulative.
It's a big deal to discover that something you thought was infallible has errors.
Then what? If it has one big error , how many more are there?
Re:And I pray the opposite... (Score:5, Informative)
Not observable?
I guess that depends on your definition of "observable", since it was Darwin's observations that species that had left the mainland had evolved into new species that were better adapted to their new environment. We have observed hundreds of human and pre-human skeletons showing an evolution over a period of a million years from chimpanzees to modern humans. Countless other observations have been made. We have even recently observed that bacteria, when selective pressure (antibiotics) is applied, they tend to evolve (ie, "superbugs").
Not repeatable?
Again, lab experiments have shown this time and again. Take two bacterial colonies, start turning up the heat over a number of generations and you'll eventually have two separate colonies of thermophiles. In the wild, convergent evolution has been seen a number of times. The textbook example are birds and bats. They belong to different classes (mammalian vs avian) and from the fossil record, we know that the wings developed after the species split off, but both creatures have very similar wing structure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In his TV show Cosmos, Carl Sagan showed how Japanese fishermen would throw crabs that had bumps on their shells that looked a bit like Samori back into the sea. He that because of this many more of those crabs would survive to reproduce (since they were not eaten by the Japanese) and they passed the genes onto their offspring that produced the bumps on their shells. Eventually the crabs shells started looking more and more like the face of a Samori as the fishermen would throw back the crabs that looked
Re: (Score:3)
By the way, back to evolution, shouldn't there be dozens... maybe hundreds... maybe thousands of fossils of creatures somewhere between monkeys and humans? Or did that evolution happen in one generation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Homo [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not observed, but we know something occurs in natural systems that results in the change of species over time, usually to match their environments. That's what our current theory of evolution is based around.
Whereas the intelligent design idea is based around evidence that's either nonexistent, anecdotal, or disproven (from what I've read, anyway).
(Not trying to slam religion, here- I think that if God does exist, he could affect the universe to create life naturally. However, applying Occam's razor shows t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To Zombie Jesus, of course.
by proxy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a public school, you just might.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
a. a Sunday school is be definition not a public school.
b. that would depend on the church.
c. Are you a Sunday school teacher.
BTW I am and one of my lessons for the ages 12 to 14 was on the value of education including science, math, history, and literature.
Nice! (Score:5, Funny)
Now the students can write "God did it" on every question without the fear of getting a bad grade.
Re: (Score:2)
This story disproves evolution. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Funny
The first thing could come up with? (Score:5, Insightful)
Requoting a sentence :
"...a bill that encourages science teachers to explore controversial topics without fear of reprisal."
So the article went straight from that wonderfully enlightened bill and went for creationism? Not partner preference, abortion, unsafe health conditions, or stem cells?
You could write 100 articles from that bill.
Re:The first thing could come up with? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the bill itself specified "[t]he teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to,
biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human
cloning"
So it could apply to any of those things you talk about, but the bill itself is specifically aimed at the topics a certain segment of society finds especially distasteful.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd argue that this sort of political manipulation would backfire in a big way. Studies of political interference, prejudice and bigotry would a
Now start teaching proper sex education... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There are things that people should know, not just to the benefit of themselves, but to the benefit of society as a whole. Knowing about sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies will help both the children involved, and society that does not have to take care of these people. That is why the government should be involved.
Flip-side of the argument: what do you think the government should be teaching children?
Re: (Score:3)
Why on earth is the government responsible for teaching that to children?
Why on earth is the government (or anyone else) responsible for teaching *anything* to children?
Hint: It has something to do with what kind of society we'd like to have.
Academic freedom vs science. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey there are teachers at universities that teach that the 9/11 attacks where a plot by the US government and they get defended on the grounds of Academic freedom.
http://media.www.smithsophian.com/media/storage/paper587/news/2007/09/20/News/Umass.Professor.Supports.911.Conspiracy.Theory-2984244.shtml [smithsophian.com]
Where do you draw the line? I agree that Creation science isn't but then I have heard teachers spout all sorts of tripe over the years. I know of one child that actually had a teacher that when she found out that she was a member of a certain religion start teaching a course about the history of the religion from a very negative view point and full of miss information. The school defended her teachers right to teach history how she saw fit and that was in high school.
So do you want the government to tell teachers what they can and can not teach?
Re: (Score:3)
There's a higher standard for the hard sciences than for the soft sciences. Physics and Biology can be tested, Religion and 9/11 theories less so.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Try reading the article you linked again. The Geosciences professor is not teaching the 9/11 conspiracy theory, she is exercising her freedom to publicly speech her opinion.
Short answer, yes. Long answer, the government does not need to micro-manage public education dow
I didn't know separating church and state was easy (Score:2)
Just say:
The bill also says that its "shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."
And apparently it's all OK.
But yes, I look forward to a few teachers starting to teach the wackiest stuff they can think of. I'd pick old-school, myself. The four humors and all that.
Not mutually exclusive. (Score:2, Insightful)
It would be pretty stupid for any Christian to say that the Earth is a meager 6000 years old, yet they do it anyway. However, there is pretty clear text that says that to God, time is of no consequence. "A day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day" and all that. Now, consider that in the "seven days" that he created the world, da
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.desy.de/gna/interpedia/greek_myth/creation.html
I like the Japanese stories of creation too; but I can't get past "Before the heavens and the earth came into existence, all was a chaos" without thinking of Monkey Magic.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah I always wondered that. Like what kind of education and careers to these people have?
Kind of hard to be a Geologist if you think the world is 5000 years old. Astrophysics would be right out the door also... etc...
Anyway there will always be idiots, I think the bigger concern should be teaching better teachers, as apparently that is one job that you can do and having wacko ideas like the world being 5000 years old isn't going to be an impediment...
An elementary or high school science teacher generally does not need a science degree. A degree in Education is fine. There are also creationists who have gotten degrees in Geology, Biology, etc. These are the ones cited by groups like Answers in Genesis and The Discovery Institute as "Scientific authorities who refute Evolution". Some of them are even kept on the payroll to deliver lectures and publish (books not scientific papers) "defending" the Creationist views.
In school (Score:2)
Begging the question (Score:2)
The problem is public education in the first place. Allow people to create schools however they want (without being crowded out by public education) and let the fittest survive.
Re:Begging the question (Score:5, Informative)
That's been tried. The corporations started cheap schools that only educated people just enough to work in the corporation's factories. (At a wage where the people couldn't afford to send their children to a better school.)
Countries that had public education then out-innovated the non-public education countries, and were better competitors in the global marketplace.
Re: (Score:3)
thank you mr. free market fundamentalist. the free market is wonderful stuff, but only in an environment where everyone is given the same starting position. if you load a kid up with a bunch of bad ideas, he's not going to be able to compete with the kid who was given effective ideas. which is fine, of course, if you don't care about damning some kid just by the chance of where he was born. but if you enforce a standard of educational requirements, then you can begin to say everyone has the equal OPPORTUNIT
Re: (Score:3)
Sure evolution isn't important except for studying diseases that can wipe out our race entirely from the planet. Other than that - not important at all.
Re: (Score:3)
What is funny, is that people really believe that evolution is a sole indicator of intelligence. As if in the course of one's life, that evolution is such a profound influence that if you cannot or do not believe in it, you cannot ever be a productive member of society.
I doubt that to be the case at all. However people could rightly question a person's critical thinking or judgement skills if they discount an overwhelmingly supported scientific theory for a faith based assertion.
Re: (Score:3)
To teach evolution in fourth grade is stupid
Why? I quite clearly remember the science course I took over the summer in 4th grade. Not because I had to, but because my parents thought it was important that I had a good education. Most of our class time involved going out to a local pond to learn about the life that inhabits it. On the applied side, it was demonstrated to us how the discovery of the microscope led to an upending of the accepted beliefs at the time. To do this, we were all given glass slides and vials to collect various selected organis
Quite sad ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it quite sad to see so many jurisdictions enshrining an ignorance of basic science into law, and defending the right of people to be both incredibly wrong, and to have their heads up their asses at the expense of verifiable scientific facts and discourse.
If your god intended you to be a drooling idiot, he wouldn't have given you the capacity to think.
I don't have a problem with religion, but when it decides that stupidity is the best course, and that it's best to ignore what we actually know about the world around us, it's quite pathetic.
I fail to see why religion needs to be compatible with basic science ... I realize there's a lot of different variations on Christianity, but even the Vatican has accepted basic science. It seems like the more you demand the right to deny evolution and the like, the more likely you are to be a wacky, radicalized person who insists that only your interpretation of the bible is correct -- and that anybody who disagrees with you is evil.
The friggin' Scopes Trial [wikipedia.org] was in 1925 -- but it seems like some people are still convinced that there is a need to live in the dark ages and pretend we haven't learned anything ... though, TV and Wal Mart don't seem to be a problem.
This is like not marking children wrong on anything factual because everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and maybe little Billy really felt that 2+2=5, and we don't want to hurt his feelings.
Re: (Score:3)
To clarify this .... I fail to see why religion needs to be incompatible with basic science".
I think the two can coexist just fine.
The issue with this 'Tribal God' (Score:4, Informative)
There are a few things that you need to understand about why this is an issue. Christianity collapses entirely without the Creation story. While under Judaism, it was just a parable to explain the creation of the world, Christianity gives this story teeth for the following reason: The basis for Jesus's sacrifice was that Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden. From the Instant that happened, with the exception of a few Jews that followed the laws of Moses, 99.999% of all Humans all born on Earth before or since were damned to Hell. Thats the only reason the evolution issue is an issue at all. If this myth isn't true (and it isn't.) Christianity collapses and Jesus died for absolutely no reason than being a cult leader the Romans wanted to execute. (make no mistake, Christianity IS a doomsday cult.)
A few things about the Judeo-Christian God Yahweh:
- He started out as part of a War God along side two other gods, Ba'al, and Asherah. When their followers were eradicated Yahweh was given the title of 'Elohim'
- Jehovah is Yahweh in German
- He is a male God. Who advocates male supremacy and is VERY misogynistic
- He is very mean, cruel, and most Humans have a morality superior to Yahweh, in his original form. Yahweh has been watered down a whole bunch.
- Yahweh is often refered to as 'The Lord' due to Censorship in English copies of the Bible. It is considered a violation of the Ten commandments to call Yahweh, 'Yahweh'.
The issue is that for reasons of social control. US Christians do not believe their civilization will survive without Christianity. Yahweh is a tribal god that his followers keep extending and expanding his powers. Yahweh is not real, he is only as powerful as his followers say he is. As such, without an all powerful Yahweh to bind everyone, and keep the masses in line, A whole lot of people who make a whole lot of money, and have a whole lot of power stand to lose their power if belief in Yahweh fades.
Another thing is there are Humans in this world who believe the myth of Heaven and Hell. To those people, when the 'end' comes, they are supremely worried that Yahweh will let exactly zero Humans (or at least not them) into Heaven. The creation myth is a big part of the idea that Jesus died for the original sin of Man. The religion doesn't work if the Garden of Eden never happened.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think it does ... literal, unyielding Christianity might.
The Catholics introduced the Jesuits almost 500 years ago ... part of their job is to handle the science, and be able to explain/integrate that into religious life.
I've known a Jesuit who was a physicist and an astronomer. Brilliant guy, open, completely accepted science in all of its forms.
I never had a really deep conversation with him on the matter, but his attitude was always "yes
Re:The issue with this 'Tribal God' (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what alot of evangelicals consider "cherry picking" to try and make Yahweh "Inclusive". Yahweh is not supposed to be "inclusive" Remember? He's a tribal war god. His title isn't "Creator of the Universe ." it is "God of Israel." He started as a small time tribal war god that's job was to promote the spread and reproduction of a specific tribe 2600 or so years ago. He had lots of competition. He's been re-interpreted and re-invented. But at his core, he is still this regional tribal god that was worshiped by desert nomads.
Those people didn't know anything about how the world they lived in worked. They just wanted to survive, and they thought that worshiping Yahweh ensured their survival.
I am both happy and sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Happy: Science teachers should most definitely explore controversial topics. All teachers should explore controversial topics. That is a fundamental part of teaching.
Sad: Does this mean that prior to this law, a teacher could not discuss a controversial topic? That is frightening!
I don't understand the criticism though:
Critics say the measure will enable K-12 teachers to present intelligent design and creationism as acceptable alternatives to evolution in the classroom.
How so? It seems like it would do the opposite by allowing good science without fear of political reprisal.
...protect teachers from discipline if they help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught..."biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." The bill also says that its "shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."
Re: (Score:3)
How so? It seems like it would do the opposite by allowing good science without fear of political reprisal.
It's pretty simple: It also allows bad science without fear of political reprisal. You know "Teach the Controversy"?
Right now, if a teacher preaches that god will smite little Timmy for the heresy of saying the world isn't flat, you can go to the principle and get him fired. For being a crazy and teaching your kid lies.
With this bill, as long as the teacher sticks to the oh-so-thinly-veiled "Intelligent Design", the parents can't affect his job.
And this is Tennessee, so evolution will probably defined
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is even coming after the fact that the vatican has specifically noted that the Bible is not a Science book and never will be. For 1 simple reason, science books change over time as we learn new theories and make new discoveries. The Bible never changes in its overall concept. The interpretations may change along with a few words here and there but the overall context has remained constant for centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in a science class, they shouldn't. One of the successes of the creationist/ID crowd has been to promote intelligent design as a viable alternate scientific theory to evolution, and argue that both have a place in a science class.
No. One has a place in science classes, and one has a place in the garbage bin of history.
Re: (Score:2)
*The creationists definition of evidence and correct.
Re: (Score:2)
I am one of the 8% but I am pretty sure that believing in a god or multiple gods does not in any way prevent you from also believing in evolution. These people are trying to teach a very specific type of interactive god.
Re:Flame War (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is that evolution isn't controversial. Hell, even the Catholic Church recognizes it. What you've got is a large number of ill-educated hicks that refuse to accept reality. Suggesting it's controversial is giving credence to all manner of silly beliefs which are demonstrably false. It's one thing to believe that God kicked off the progress, that at least isn't known to be false.
Same goes for climate change, there's a lot of idiots out there that don't believe it, but in terms of the people who actually study it, there's very little actual argument going on about it being real. The real controversy at present is over what to do about it, precisely how bad will it be and how long do we have to do something about it.
Re:Bible school? (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth^W^WScience threatens the parents' faith.
Don't ask why their faith is so weak that it has to be protected by the government from conflicting ideas.
Re:Bible school? (Score:4, Insightful)
The trouble is that those who believe in creationism greatly fear their kids hearing the other side of the story, because they might start believing in evolution.
Try to put yourself in the shoes of a fundamentalist Christian parent:
1. My son/daughter believes in creationism now, they've accepted Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior and have been saved, so they're going to Heaven when they die.
2. I have a few friends whose children heard of this evolution stuff from some fancy-pants schoolteacher, and no longer believes in creationism or even Jesus, and is thus a sinner doomed to Hell. My other friend's kids were fine, and still don't believe in evolution, but a few did, so that could be my kid.
3. Thus I should do everything in my power to prevent my kid from hearing about evolution, because the salvation of my child's soul, which to a True Believer is more important than their life, depends on it.
If you believe in that sort of Christianity, but don't believe that your child's faith is strong enough that they might get so easily tempted away, then this is a real fear. This is especially true if you also believe that the theory of evolution was created by Satan in order to tempt the faithful away from God. And if you can't afford a private school, and the kid in question is under the legal dropout age, then from your perspective the law is requiring your little saved child to be tempted by Satan.
I don't believe any of this, but if you try to get into that mindset where these ideas are accepted as the most fundamental truths of existence, it makes perfect sense.