Want a Science Degree In Creationism? 848
The Bad Astronomer writes "In Texas, a state legislator wants the ironically-named Institute for Creation Research to be able to grant a Masters degree in science. In fact, the bill submitted to the Texas congress would make it legal for any private group calling themselves educational to be able to grant advanced degrees in science. So, now's your chance: that lack of a PhD in Astrology and Alchemy won't hold you back any longer."
The Institute for Creation Research made a similar request to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board last year, but were shot down.
Mail Order (Score:5, Funny)
I guess my age is showing. I prefer to get my degrees through the more traditional approach: mail order.
One good thing about Creationism (Score:5, Insightful)
The one good thing about Creationism is that it forces teachers to present the scientific method to the students at a much earlier age. Often the nuts and volts of the skepticism that is the core process of science is skipped over in schools.
Children will say that my pastor showed me a picture of the dinosaurs and the cavemen living together. The teacher will explain that there is a difference between a painting and a photograph, and that with a certain skill, one can paint a picture of anything that looks reasonably like a near-photo.
Children will say that the earth was created in six days, 4000 years ago. Well we weren't there to witness this. But we can show records and artifacts (ones that weren't stolen from the Baghdad museum) that are over 4000 years old.
Creationism forces teachers to instill a spirit of skepticism in students. "I don't believe you, prove it" mentality that is more important that the facts themselves.
Re:One good thing about Creationism (Score:4, Insightful)
Each creative day is about 1,000 years totaling up to about 6,000 years.
[bible citation needed]
It says 'day' in the bible. There is no footnote explaining this actual means '1,000' years.
At least not in the King James version.
For some reason people go on the assumption that a creative day is a literal 24-hours
Could the reason perhaps be that the Bible says 'day'?
despite the fact that when Genesis was written no such calender system existed.
Good Lord! They had no days when Genesis was written?
They could write and everything, but hadn't noticed the sun is the highest in the sky on a reliably repeatable period?
With all do respect sir, please learn a little more about the Bible before making a critical review of it.
With all due respect, it is perfectly clear to anyone not trying to reinterpret the theory to fit the data that it does say that the Earth -- and everything in it -- was created in six days.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...I turn rocks into gold!!...
A good friend of mine has a machine into which she puts rocks which then go round and round and round and round and they've become very pretty rocks which she sells, well not for gold, but for dollars, which were made of gold at one time.
Creationism... (Score:2, Interesting)
is the antithesis of science.
Re:Creationism... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Religion is the antithesis of science, logically.
That's a myth put about by the scientists and religionists who want a conflict (after all, it sells books), that I believe can only be sustained by taking an unusual definition of religion (or science). What do you think science is? What do think religion is? Why do you think one is the antithesis of the other? Hint: religion is far more empirical than most of its critics realise.
By the way, slightly tongue in Hegelian cheek: if religion (being older than science) is the thesis, and science is the antithesi
Re:Creationism... (Score:5, Interesting)
Religion is the anti-thesis of science because you are not allowed to question in religion. When was the last time anybody happened to say, "you know the bible/koran/tora needs updating, let's change a few paragraphs shall we."
Whereas in science things do get updated, changed, and altered. This is what science does in that it makes us question dogma and come up with solutions.
Many people consider evolution dogma because those who believe do not consider the alternatives. Yet I think if there were plausible alternatives to evolution we would change our thinking.
One example is plate tectonics. We assume that the earth is a constant diameter, but it is starting to become more accepted that the earth might indeed be growing. You might disagree, but there are people who are researching this.
My point is that somebody is indeed questioning dogma...
When was the last time this happened in religion?
Re:Creationism... (Score:4, Informative)
Religion is the anti-thesis of science because you are not allowed to question in religion.
Speaking from personal experience, this is very nearly completely untrue in Judaism.
When was the last time anybody happened to say, "you know the bible/koran/tora needs updating, let's change a few paragraphs shall we."
Most likely not the most recent example, but see Reform Judaism [wikipedia.org]
Re:Creationism... (Score:4, Informative)
When was the last time this happened in religion?
All the time.
Changes in the dogma of Anglican churches over women priests are a recent example.
The history of the early church was full of debates.
All the founders of religions challenged the dogmas of existing religions. All the reformers of religions challenged existing dogma.
It happens slower than in science because there is rarely any new evidence to consider
Scriptures are not changed, but that would be dishonest. It would be like the police changing witnesses' written statements because of evidence they were mistaken or lying. The correct thing to do in both cases is to present both the statements and the evidence or arguments contradicting them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A very good point - but Hindus and Buddhists aren't the ones trying to sabotage science education in the US, which is what normally starts these arguments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite. I am working on a paper on theories of magic (in traditional cultures) at the moment and would suggest that scientific and mytho-magical are the result of very different ways of organizing knowledge. Scientific thought is the product of an analytical, objectively distanced worldview which is fundamentally the product of writing, while magic is fundamentally the product of an aggregative, participatory worldview conditioned by the constraints of oral tradition.
Most of the patterns that James Fra
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I actually think that Religion is complimentary to science.
Consider: Religion exists to help us explain the unknown because we're not comfortable (and can't function normally) in uncertainty. That's why every religion has a creation myth - to allow us to formulate a nice, succinct answer to "where we came from." Religion is a scaffold through which we build an understanding of the world.
As we gradually explain the things around us, we replace the religious scaffold with knowledge: That's why it's not gene
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Reminds me of a joke (Score:3, Insightful)
A man wonders whether sex is permitted on the sabbath. So he goes and asks the priest whether sex is work and thus prohibited on the Sabbath. The priest consults the Bible and concludes that it is. The man is not entirely satisfied by this because he is unsure whether a celebate man is the right person to give him this advice, so he asks a protestent minister. The minister consults the Bible and concludes that it is work and is thus prohibited on the Sabbath. Just to get one final opinion, the man goes
Re:Creationism... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a significant problem with that: falsifying (aka finding possible problems with) evolution or the big bang is hardly proving Creationism. I've never seen a valid defense of Creationism other than "evolution isn't true". The problem is, it's not a binary system. They are not logical opposites. Disproving evolution isn't proving Creation, not by a long-shot. If you want to get a degree in "anti-Evolution" by all means do. But don't pretend that "disproving" some small part of the dominant theory in biological and/or cosmological science negates and renders useless the entire theory, and also somehow provides evidence for an empirically random minor theory.
A good theory has to add value. This means it has to explain everything the old theory explained, and add additional, optimally risky, predictions that the old one didn't, to explain things the old one didn't. That's a pretty daunting task for a theory as big as evolution. If you want to try to counter a specific part of evolution, by all means go at it. But trying to disprove all of evolution by, say, questioning carbon-14 dating, is not the way to do it.
Einstein's theory of gravity won out over the dominant Newtonian theory not because it had Einstein's name on it, or because some religion had nonsimultaneity written in their books. It's because Einstein explained everything Newton did, explained things he didn't, and made very risky predictions as to how things would happen under his theory as opposed to Newton. Many of these have since proved true.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am under the impression that evolution HAS been (mathematically) proven by use of genetic algorithms.
I myself on many occasions have overseen the REAL evolution of simulated organism. There exists a plethora of programs (at varying levels of detail) to experience the wonders of this phenomena yourself. It's truly amazing (at least to me) to watch a completely incompetent agent failing to interact with it's environment turn into an efficient resource gather overnight.
Of course I am assuming that DNA is q
This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Funny)
The idea that one can't study or learn anything from the study of Creationism is just as closed minded and retrogressive as the area of study itself. There are Masters-level degrees awarded for all sorts of fields that most of us would dismiss as poppycock. Religion, Divinity, even Media Studies have advanced degree programs for students interested in the topics.
By bringing serious study and research to this field, we can shed light on it and evolve the field to be at least in line with current scientific thought. Beyond that, it would also be possible to expand the theological underpinnings of the theory and discover the rationale behind it. How much better off would we be if we finally cleared away all the religious baggage of Creationism and brought it inline with real science?
There are many Deists in the scientific community. Why wouldn't the theory of a Divine Clockmaker be a reasonable field of study?
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Deists and creationists have relatively little in common.
Science can only be done by following the scientific method, creationism is the opposite of that, it is dogma warmed over.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I do not believe one bit in creationism.
I agree that the scientific method needs to be applied to creationism. But I would like to know if by following the scientific method we could disprove creationism?
Can we disprove creationism? Because science is not about proving anything, it is about disproving hypothesis and then we work with the ones that we can't with all our might disprove. As long as an hypothesis has not been proven wrong, it stands!
So I'm just curious, did we or can we disprove
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
can we disprove creationism
We can disprove some parts of the story as being inconsistent with the evidence we see, but the whole point is that it isn't really testable because it doesn't directly make predictions of how the world would be if it was true.
It's like trying to disprove 'Romeo and Juliet.' You might be able to say "There is no evidence of a prominent Capulet family in Verona in the 13th or 14th century," but there is nothing you can look at in today's world that would be different if the play was just fiction. That's what makes it a story instead of a theory.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you are saying is that, the hypothesis does not make any predictions, so it is "Not even wrong" ?
That's true, except that the few predictions it does make are wrong. (The age of the earth is clearly greater than 6,000 years, and the creation theory contains no explanation for why all the evidence should consistently point to a much older age. Species do not always reproduce after their kind. And so on.)
The theory can be pushed and prodded to make it not actually inconsistent ("See, by 'day', we mean a couple of billion years...") But it doesn't predict those things; these explanations are formed af
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean like this whole section of their website (with 8 subsections):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/age-of-the-earth [answersingenesis.org]
You mean like the creationist that correctly predicted the magnetic fields of all the planets prior to the Voyager flybys (non-creationists got them all wrong, but their theory is in your science book, no
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
Ahem: what you've posted has been rather thoroughly refuted by members of the scientific community:
1) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html [talkorigins.org]
2) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html [talkorigins.org]
I highly recommend that you peruse talkorigins.org and determine the veracity of your claims before posting. Anyone with a reasonable grounding in the relevant topics (geology, astrophysics) can quite quickly see that the articles you have linked to are not sound science, merely poor arguments presented to appear as science.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we disprove creationism?
No. We can't even *try*. And for precisely this reason, creationism is not science.
Strip away everything else and science comes down to these steps.
1. Posit a falsifiable hypothesis.
2. Design an experiment to test it.
3. If you fail to disprove it, it might be true.
Any argument that can be boiled down to '$DIVINITY did it!' fails at step one. By definition, God, miracles, etc. fall outside the bounds of science. You can't disprove them. You can *try* to reason about them logically. Everyone who has eve
Big difference (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Because in order to perform an experiment, you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis.
Creationism cannot form a falsifiable hypothesis because EVERY outcome could be "proven" by the words "God wanted it that way".
That is why it is not science.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
None that I'm aware of. But consider the situation where somebody makes 10,000 predictions. Law of averages says, said person has to be right sometime. Now that person throws press conferences on his 'hits' and buries his 'misses', and spins it to where he's always 'righ
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers (Score:3, Interesting)
From one of those pages [answersingenesis.org] linked to: 'The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters' (Matthew 12:30). Any "God" who requires faith in order to be "saved" is sadistic.
Falcon
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
The study of Creationism (or anything that is not science) cannot be logically classed as a Science program. Just like one can study ballet, it doesn't make sense to give a science degree in ballet since ballet is not a science. Whether the belief in ballet is logical and consistent with reality is irrelevant.
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Interesting)
When one parallel universe gets raped by a divine parallel universe and gives birth to another divine parallel universe which is then killed and resurrected with a zombie army of parallel universes ....
Yeah, ok, so that was a horrible attempt at an analogy, but my point was: you're completely wrong. As strange and counter-intuitive as quantum physics can be, it doesn't even begin to approach the level of crazy which most religions embrace as their founding principles.
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Funny)
It's characterized by surrounding yourself by people who exclusively think like you already think, and not being challenged.
Like going to a church or something?
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to. Parallel universes, etc. The "god story" doesn't sound so wierd once you get to the advanced levels of stuff.
I think things like parallel universes are mathematical hypothesis. No scientist AFAIK is stating that they exist as a scientific fact.
And yes it is important to keep an open mind. Unfortunately closing oneself off in either a religious community or a scientific community has generally involved historical atrocities. Josef Mengele is no better than Jimmy Jones, and MKULTRA isn't any better than Sharia Law.
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
There are certainly scientific facts. But facts are always measured, never proven. Facts are the raw stuff from which science is built, much like taking money from credible suckers is the raw stuff from which religion is built.
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to.
Only under the loosest of terms. But there are no "mysteries" of Creationism, at least not ones that are intended to be knowable by Man. God created the world in six days (according to one version of events). We don't care how and have only a passing interest in why.
The "advanced levels of things" in science terms is more like "Why is the weak nuclear force so strong compared to gravity?" What the hell happened during nucleosynthesis?
Creationism isn't a search for answers. It is an answer. It fails the test of Occam's razor: it does not adequately explain the observations, and it postulates unnecessary entities. Call it what you like, but it is not science.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
the lack of respect most Slashdotters have for other beliefs is disheartening.
The same can be applied to believers of religion. However while Slashdotters would let Religionists live as they want, Fundimentalists of various stripes whether Christian Talibans [ucsd.edu] or Muslim Talibans would force people to live the way they say.
Falcon
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Interesting)
No, this is a bad idea.
They just want to be accredited to validate their point.
This doesn't make any sense. Creationism isn't a field of study. It would be like being aloud to give out degrees in capacitance instead of having it be just part of an EE degree.
What is there to study anyway? It's just based on what's in the bible.
It's pretty sad really. Like they don't believe the Bible is authoritative enough and they need a state government to give it credence. Maybe more ironic.
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore, religion cannot be science.
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:4, Funny)
We can only pray
Creationism is satanic. (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't even argue that creationism is a serious religious line of study. A good religious study is, at least in christian tradition, is deeply prayerful and meditative. It's a rejection of the flesh to try and understand the soul. It's not about this world, but the other. Becoming focused on the making of the earth and engaging in so called scientific debate as creationism does actually misses the point of religion in general and Christ in particular.
Jesus doesn't care how old the earth is. It's here, and its a sufficient vehicle within Christianity for us to make our moral choices. Arguing whether or not its some age or another only serves to deflect from the purpose of a devout Christian's life - to live in accordance with the words of Jesus as son of god. IF Christ would have wanted us to worry about the earth, he would have given us a geologists report on the mount, rather than a sermon.
I would almost argue that creationism is actually satanic!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree totally.
Maybe it's more about transcendence of the body rather than rejection of it. While we live we are sensual, and Christians influenced by Tao might realize that our natural desires only need tempering, not abolishment, and that there are skills involved in keeping them within bounds.
I'm not sure all Christians follow the premise that Jesus is THE son of God. Scholarly Christians may have learned that in the original languages Jesus is only referred to - or refers to himself - as "a son of God"
what about morality? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the real question is not who is right or wrong, the real question is whether the morality that Christianity teaches is even remotely defensible. While it's nice that Christians agree with the rest of us that murder and theft are bad things, the core of their morality is that moral behavior is based on rules handed down from a higher authority.
I find that unacceptable as a basis for morality, and so do many other religions. In fact, both gnostics and Satanists view the Christian God as either confu
Re:This is not a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
By bringing serious study and research to this field, we can shed light on it and evolve the field to be at least in line with current scientific thought. Beyond that, it would also be possible to expand the theological underpinnings of the theory and discover the rationale behind it. How much better off would we be if we finally cleared away all the religious baggage of Creationism and brought it inline with real science?
Serious study and research into the evolution of man and origin of our planet and the cosmos is already being done. Getting creationism in line with "current scientific thought" would pretty much destroy the fundamentals behind it. The idea that the universe is 6000 years old does not fit and can not be made to fit without a leap of faith that usually discounts any research and knowledge gained as lies or Satanic propaganda.
In short, if you "cleared away all the religious baggage" from creationism you leave nothing. Creationism is by definition religious baggage.
This is a bad idea, contrary to your opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
There are three problems with this idea.
First, whatever your opinion of "poppycock" degrees, they are drastically different from this degree in creationism. A few examples:
Degree in Religion: You have studied and become an expert on the social phenomenon known as religion. You have studied a number of different religions. This degree requires that the student have an advanced understanding of history, philosophy, and anthropology.
Degree in Divinity: While typically granted by 'Christian' universities, this degree requires that the student have an advanced understanding of Christian texts and their interpretations and translations. In practice, it is only slightly different from having a degree in any the study of any ancient manuscripts.
Creationism: Creationism 'science' is essentially a list of poorly constructed arguments that attempt to refute evolution. The main requirement for any argument on this list is that they are 'convincing' rather than being accurate. There is no academic rigor to this field.
Creationism does not compare to other religious degrees.
Second, Creationism is currently operating under the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity. They don't actually want to be 'accepted', they just want to grab as many headlines as possible. They want big, showy, and silly public debates with well-respected scientists. They don't want to sit down in a lab and prove anything. i.e. Creationists frequently argue that if you place an organism in observation and wait thousands of generations, that organism will not evolve new features. However, no creationist has even attempted to demonstrate this fact. It wouldn't even be particularly difficult to attempt. However, actual scientists have done this experiment and dedicated a massive amount of time to the work. They were rewarded with the exact opposite of the creationists predictions. If you want to know more about this research, please visit :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
The third, and biggest problem with Creationism is that it is a concept, not a field of study. You don't grant degrees in 'ideas'. We don't have a degree for perpetual motion machines, proving Goldbach's conjecture, or any other crackpottery you can imagine. A degree is rewarded for a field of study. What exactly are Creationists going to study?
I am not opposed to this "Degree in Creationism" in the same way I am opposed to Creationism. I want to admit that I think Creationism is absurd. However, I am even more opposed to a degree in creationism for the reasons stated above. I would be equally opposed to a degree is Deism, Skepticism, or any other idea I believe in.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sheesh - does that really need explaining? A degree in apple counting is unnecessary, since anybody can do it without any training. Using the same title for people who have attended a three week course to count apples and people who've actually gained significant knowledge in a complicated field, is cheating.
Maybe you worked hard because you aren't particularly suited to the field you studied?
Phrasing insults as rhetorical questions is a rather co
Names Please (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone from Texas, I would appreciate the name of the legislator in the summary.
And now that you have made me read TFA, it doesn't mention the legislators name either. I guess Mr. Bad Astronomer felt like taking this opportunity to bash Texas without actually helping people get something done.
Re:Names Please (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except he's not laughing.
The proof is in the...? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you try to justify anything by using religion, it opens the door to a huge number of problems. Science implies the use of the scientific method, and while they might open a new field of study into trying to prove the existence of God, that is the ONLY way that a science degree in creationism might be seen as legit, but with almost no chance of proving anything.
So, if they want to really study how God could create life, then they would have to go into all those areas that the religious groups are against, like cloning, genetic manipulation, etc.
Just trying to pawn off creationism as other than a way to deny evolution by this sort of stunt just shows how stupid some people can be.
Re:The proof is in the...? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not looking at it through their eyes, and thus you're misrepresenting their motivations.
They're not trying to prove God. They are trying to disprove Atheism. They are as grossly offended by the teaching of Evolution to their children as they would be about condom use, sex education, condoning sex outside of marriage, promotion of interracial relations, public support of planned parenthood, etc.
These are honest points of disagreement (some being more laughable than others).
Thus, teaching Evolution exclusively is essentially forcing their children to admin that the 7-day universe is false - they come home to the parents and pose difficult questions.
By promoting at least one other distinct alternative to evolution, then the parents can successfully say, see, it's only one of several possible theories, so don't worry about it.
It's the exact same process I use to disprove Christianity. If you have 2 or more mutually exclusive descriptions of God's will, then at least one is guaranteed to be at least partialy wrong (and thus not worthy of mindless acceptance), and in the absence of any credible proof of one verses the other, then in all likelihood they are both wrong.. Continue this trend until you've reach every single man made religion, and you've welcomed the world of Agnosticism.
Note I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something. But functionally, Agnosticism is equivalent to Atheism. I frown at Dawkins (and others) view that Agnostics are cognitively dissodent. It doesn't serve his cause of winning the hearts and minds of the religious, and is provably incorrect.
Re:The proof is in the...? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something"
Congratulations on totally misunderstanding Dawekins and (most) atheists.
Religions can be dismissed based on the fact that they are flawed, contradictory of each other and themselves, can be shown to take ideas from other religions and long-dead cults and are basically patently ridiculous.
As for the possible existence of some sort of creator god? No proof of absence is offered, it is simply that there is no evidence or even credible suggestion to the positive, so for now I'll operate under the assumption there isn't one. Most atheists are agnostic too. They are without evidence (agnostic) so they don't believe in a god (atheist).
Re:The proof is in the...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Note I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something. But functionally, Agnosticism is equivalent to Atheism. I frown at Dawkins (and others) view that Agnostics are cognitively dissodent. It doesn't serve his cause of winning the hearts and minds of the religious, and is provably incorrect.
Atheism just means the absence of belief in god, not the absolute denial of the possibility of existence in god. This is a common misconception. What you are referring to is "hard atheism" which is, more or less, impossible to prove and not really subscribed to.
Self-proclaimed agnostics are either, in reality, "soft atheists" or people pleasers who feel the need to assert their special individuality in such a way that offends the least amount of people.
Basically, if you're not a theist then you're an atheist... because you're without theism. It's not like sexuality where you can swing both ways.
I am actually an Apathist (Score:5, Funny)
... I don't care if God exists. IMO, too much time, money and energy has been wasted on the topic. Time to move on.
I can see money! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll make a fortune off the gullible who believe in every kind of pseudo-reality!
I'll have leprechaun pots full of gold fast!
*insert evil laugh here*
Re:I can see money! (Score:4, Funny)
If this passes, I'm going to open up an Institute of Paranormal Studies in Texas, and hire every two bit crackpot psychic to be professors!
Dude, you're thinking too small. I want my M.S. in Flying Spaghetti Monster Studies (MSFSMS), and I want it now.
You guys are missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It is the same reason that makes the advanced degree in Philosophy to be a "Master of Arts", and not "Master of Science".
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by equating philosophy with creationism, since natural philosophy is in many ways the grounding without which science can't exist.
I think the real issue here is that a Bachelor of Science or a Masters of Science should include some scientific investigation and preparation for further scientific work. And this is where the whole "creationism is not science" comes from: there's no scientific work to do in the field of creationism. It's a done deal. You know th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try punching "experimental evolution" into Google. That only turns up 25 million hits but here are a few to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution [wikipedia.org]
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/ [msu.edu]
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Bacteriophage_experimental_evolution [citizendium.org]
It looks to me like these people are doing actual work to justify their conclusions. Now you can dispute their methods and conclusions but what they are up to isn't faith in a religious sense. Sticking lots of exclamation points on astou
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh snap! [wikipedia.org]
Speak for yourself (Score:4, Interesting)
So, now's your chance: that lack of a PhD in Astrology and Alchemy won't hold you back any longer.
I miss the old Chaoseum. I have a couple polo shirts, alumni association mug, auto stickers (including the parking lot passes), multiple T-shirts and the Bachelors and Masters (Medieval Metaphysics) kits from "Old Misk". It was my understanding they got the word to cool it or they might get charged with being a diploma mill? At an IT training about a decade ago I was wearing the Miskatonic U, Dept of Astrology polo shirt and the instructor asked me, "Your university doesn't really have a department of astrology, does it?"
As for Texas, or Oklahoma or much of the South and Midwest, I've been saying on the political blogs that if Chuck Norris wants to lead a secession, let him. Give Bubba a reservation to run free so the rest of us can get on with progress -- and we can deny them visas to return.
Part of the Plan (Score:5, Interesting)
Once you start shoveling out these bogus degrees, you get a pool of right wing religious nuts with 'credentials' that make them look like reasonable candidates for educational boards or other public offices. You can be sure that they won't provide any detail on where they got the degree in their campaigning, and the voting public will not be interested enough to check themselves.
"Oh look, Jebus McFearhim Phd is running for the Texas State Board of Education. That's just the kind of learned individual we need."
Giggle... (Score:5, Informative)
Easiest Degree Ever (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like a class where I can just make up answers out of absolutely nothing. It's a miracle anyone passes!
Re:Easiest Degree Ever (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a minor in Religion from a Lutheran college, and while I don't see the point in granting a master's in Creationism outside of the liberal arts wing of academia, I will say that religion classes in general don't allow the sort of thing you describe at all.
You have to support any position you take by using the actual texts, understanding the history of the document itself as well as the Sitzt im Leben and supporting traditions. In fact, the professors tend to make you feel pretty small if you just spout off some fundie crap and say, "it's just what I believe".
It's a shame someone modded your obvious troll insightful. Try expanding your horizons before being so superficially critical.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
look at what you are 'majoring' in. you think its serious?
all men have the same amount of 'special info' about god and religion. therefore there is no more secret knowledge that one has that the others also don't have (religious guys disagree but that's their problem).
why do you need to 'study' the ravings of just regular old people? that's not science or even worthy of study any more than watching some random tv program is.
it amazes me that people believe that some guys in 'funny hats' have some special
Star Fleet Academy (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey, let's start Star Fleet Academy in Texas!
Degree in Religious Engineering (Score:3, Funny)
I propose a degree in Religious Engrineering. Here are example test questions:
Religious Engineering midterm exam. 5 questions, 60 minutes. You can use the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, and the Book of Mormon. In all questions, assume that Jesus is perfectly spherical and has an uniform density of G. Parying during the exam is forbidden.
1. (20 pts)
Adam and Bob are at rest. God loves them equally (L-0). Subsequently, Adam accelerates to 0.9c. From the point of view of Bob, how much more does God love Adam?
2. Stephan, a Catholic, is in a state of sanctifying grace. After some time he has an intercourse with a sheep S.
a) (8 pts) What is Stephan's retribution coefficient if the sheep S consented?
b) What is Stephan's retribution coefficient if the sheep S didn't consent, but it couldn't be said it had something against it?
3. (20 pts) The Holy Spirit's eternal, all-encompasing love is in the XY plane. The soul of Sue is at (0,0,5) at t = 0s, and its velocity vector is (0,0,5) m/s. The model was constructed according to rational positivism typical of the Enlightenement period. At what time tS will Sue's soul achieve salvation? (Hint: assume that souls are point-like).
4. (20 pts) Assume that the Ascension happens at the time t. Cameron, a saved human being in the state of sanctifying grace, at the time t has her head crushed in the jaws of an alligator. Calculate the mass of meat left for the alligator at the time t + 10s.
5. Isaac is a frictionless Jew of uniform density at rest. For his faith level, his sin factor is 11 Moseses. He subsequently eats 300 grams of pork, and he enjoys it. For this question, assume that Jews are always right.
a) (10 pts) What is Isaac's sin factor after eating the pork?
b) (10 pts) What is Isaac's heritage adjusted sin factor if he's from the tribe of Judah?
Bonus question.
25 g of wafer and 20 ml of cheap wine undergo transsubstatiation to become the flesh and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Calculate the amount of heat that is liberated during this process, in joules.
(note: originally this was a Polish text by an anonymous author)
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think this was meant to start a flamewar at all! Your opinion is both wrong and full of ignorance! It's people like you who are ruining Slashdot.
PROFIT!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Come off it - the people demanding the ability to grant degrees in "Creation Science" are the ones trolling the rest of the country, and trying to ruin the educatio system.
I have a better idea - if they get this "right" - get the degree, then publish about how creationism is total bullshit, and point to your "credentials" as someone with an "advanced degree in creation science." Make $$$ selling books, appearances on the idiot box/faux news, etc.
I have an even better idea - let them move to Jebus-land [thepatriotaxe.com]. What the rising waters don't get, global warming-driven hurricanes and droughts will. Problem solved.
Re:PROFIT!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
True, but it's not just the creationists. Education in this country is being ruined by everyone with an agenda. Look at the history books that refuse to mention Reagan when addressing the cold war. It's the same type of thing, just from a different groups agenda.
I don't have kids yet, but I've already started thinking about how I will teach them all the things that schools either leave out or PC up. The problem is that to do it right it's going to be nearly a full time job doing research.
Re:PROFIT!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
I do have kids.
My oldest is in Kindergarten and already the questions about our educational system are in the forefront.
The banned book list for the school district I live in is a who's who of great literary works...
Black Boy
Uncle Toms Cabin
Catcher in the Rye
To Kill a Mocking Bird
etc.
Along with slightly more understandable works (though I still believe they should not be banned):
Marquis de Sade
The Bible
The Satanic Verses
Balzac
etc.
My children will be reading all these books (at the appropriate time in their educational development) and their book reports will be on these books, if that is what they want to write about, and if they are still in school. Should they find themselves suspended for having one of these books in their backpack, or for writing about them, or for presenting their reports on them, then I will bring a constitutional case of freedom of press and speech against the school district. Our education system has gone so downhill in the 16 or so years since I was in it that I am ashamed to be involved with the American educational system.
The problem is that to do it right it's going to be nearly a full time job doing research.
Yes, it will be. My wife has a multitude of degrees (focused in Social science/humanities) and I have a hard science and experimental background. We made the decision to be "poor" so that my wife can stay home with the kids and further their education because the school system simply is too broken to keep our daughter engaged. If we relied on the public schools entirely then she would be one of those high IQ kids with straight D's, simply because she would be bored to death.
Single biggest problem with the school system in the lower grades: Teaching to the slowest children in the class. The elephant in the corner are the state mandated tests. What should happen is that the class is taught to the grade level and the faster kids can advance mid semester and the slower kids can be held back. But that's not PC so it can't be allowed to happen.
-nB
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Both were brilliant books that I did end up reading during my high school education. Hell, I think I read Mocking Bird in Grade 8. This is coming from Canada, so the rules are obviously different.
Anyways, Catcher in the Rye was and probably is the book that had the greatest impact on me by reading it. It was about a teenage boy going through a great deal of angst for reasons and results that require spoiling too much, but it dealt with many of the same woes that I was experiencing at the time. Since I read
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:4, Insightful)
In the "bible belt" you will be ostracized from your community if you mock religion (though it's acceptable to insult atheists). In other countries you can actually get killed for mocking religion.
Really, mocking religion on the internet is the only safe outlet a lot of people have.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
... due to the snide, sophomoric, brain-washed, self-destructive, petty, clever fools who make up 98.317% of its posters.
[Bold added by me]. I'll take that as a compliment.
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I'd rather shoot a solipsist in the face. After all, the reality of my gun going off in their face is purely subjective, and if they decide that it's not "real" to them, they should be just fine.
It's one of those few situations where the old "I'm philosophically right because I'm still alive after the duel" argument is actually valid.
These solipsism arguments could also be called "argument from pretentious stupidity", and have no place in a discussion about the real world.
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:4, Insightful)
One of my old professors had a very poignant saying:
Science should explain how things happen, religion should explain why things happen. Every time either side has tried to cross this line, they were wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with that interesting statement. Maybe the dilemma is in the "what." Science and religion both claim, as an extension of the why and how, what happens, what happened or what will happen.
All these wars and for what ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The creationists and evolutionists BELIEVE a different set of witnesses.
The funny thing is, the creationsts' "witnesses" were a bunch of humans who wrote a book a few hundred years ago.
The evolutionists' "witnesses" are extrapolation from known scientific principles.
Put another way: Is it possible to know experimentally or observationally that a black hole exists? You can't see it, you can only see the way it affects the space around it. And you clearly can't experiment on it. Yet most of us agree that they exist.
I suppose it depends what you mean by "observation", then, right?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I mean, real schools offer up degrees in philosophy, pottery, and basket weaving and who knows what.
Sure they do. What's wrong with that? But they don't offer a scientific degree in philosophy. They probably offer a masters of art in pottery or clay working. The question then really is, does anyone offer an M.S. in basket weaving? If so is it validly approached as scientific basket weaving?
Creationism isn't science, it's just religious propaganda. It's fine with me if they want to offer a religious or public relations degree in creationism... just not a science degree.
What I don't understand about this (Score:5, Insightful)
How on earth do you get a PhD in creationism? The whole point of creationism is that it is grounded in biblical literalism. To get a PhD you are supposed to make a substantial contribution to the field, which seems to be at odds with the idea of creationism.
Now, I think one should be able to get a PhD in other (existing, humanities and sciences) fields by providing an authoritative study of mythological patterns in Genesis 1-3 as well as textual constructions, philology, structural anthropology, etc. But that is hardly the same thing as a PhD in creationism. Even if you could get a PhD equivalent in creation theology, the proper venue is as a doctor of divinity.
I say this having made substantial contributions [google.com] to the field of practical rune-magic.
Although I think Robert Zoller certainly does deserve an honorary PhD for his work on topics related to astrology (whether it is through the philosophy department or the history department is a question for others). However his contributions, discussing the Renaissance significance of the Arabic Parts, their roots in Neo-Platonism and the relationship between neo-Platonism in the Middle-East and that in the West, etc. is groundbreaking both from a historical and a practical perspective. Similarly his work looking at Scandinavian sky lore is extremely interesting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That would be a degree in philosophy, not arts.
It looks to me as if it would straddle theology, philosophy of religion and sociology. But hey, it's the USA, so presumably it should go to a vote. (I was once in a standardisation meeting in which the US contingent forced a vote on whether pure Poisson processes are time-stationary. They didn't think they were, and decided that the correct way to resolve the issue was not to do analysis, not to consult the textbooks, but to vote on it. That taught me a lot about how science functions in a culture obsessed
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:4, Insightful)
There is another way to filter on this than just schools in Texas since I would bet states like Arkansas are going to join in if it flies in Texas.
Filter on the year the degree was granted.
This might not be a bad idea anyway with all the stories of recent graduates needing to be constantly recognized for their "achievements" which is really nothing more than doing the minimum, their lack of attention to any task, little concern for quality, etc.
I know it's a sweeping generalization, but it would be the deciding factor all other things being equal. Just too many stories on how poor the recent graduates are to ignore. Throw in thinking creationism is a science and that makes them laughable.
Re:That's Fine With Me (Score:5, Funny)
Throw in thinking creationism is a science and that makes them laughable.
I don't know, I'd be pretty impressed with a scientist that could describe mathematically how the universe was created in 7 days. Even more so if he could reproduce the results in a lab.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There. Fixed that for you. Generalising like that never does an argument any good.;)
Same as mainstream science really. A couple of bad roses in every bunch.
It's not a generalisation. Look at creationism, and it can be seen that, by definition, creationism is throwing out the evidence and inserting Biblical dogma instead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's in an advanced degree? It's a piece of paper that says you're willing to swallow whatever the professor says and regurgitate it on to paper.
I have had science teachers that were very liberal and very conservative. Neither should be the basis of a science class. But if you agree with them and don't argue, you have a degree.
Personally, I don't think it's wrong to *believe* the world was created by God, or that the world evolved from a puddle of slime. Either way, there's no solid proof.
For one thing, I believe almost every word of the Old Testament, I see very little contradiction with science. However, the point I was making is that these schools are trying to pass off one thing as another. I cannot trust them.
If you think I'm harsh, then write to the Texas legislators and let them know that us harshies will be harsh on their graduates. It's them that will suffer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"you're degree is worthless."
Unlike you're's, I guess.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
or that the world evolved from a puddle of slime.
This is exactly as informed and insightful an understanding of evolution as Ben Stein's description of "lightning striking a puddle of mud."
In other words, it's not actually about evolution, and it's also an incredibly poor understanding of abiogenesis.
Either way, there's no solid proof.
However, there is quite a bit more evidence to support abiogenesis, and a truly massive amount of evidence for evolution. Modern biology relies on evolution, in fact.
On the other hand, there is absolutely zero proof of the Bible's Genesis.
Oh, and for that mat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How did the sign get smashed to pieces? There is some material left on it, that looks like paint. My theory is that a blue car or truck struck it and drove away.
How did the sign get smashed to pieces? There is some material left on it, that looks like paint. Last week crazy Carl told me there is a giant, invisible whale that flies through the air. Further it can tell the future. He says it whispered to him and said the "smurfiness was smithereens". How could he have known a week ago? See the smurfiness is t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
perfect chance meeting of various bits of 'life goo'
Without actually researching it, this seems plausible. Consider that the oceans -- that is, most of the planet's surface -- were literally teeming with the basic building blocks of life. All it takes is one single-celled organism, no matter how crude, and suddenly, you have tons of life, seemingly out of nowhere.
Describing this as a "puddle of slime" is kind of like claiming that a single drop of water can cover the world [youtube.com].
What created the earth? Ok, what created the universe? Ok, what created the big bang
It is actually quite possible that the big bang had no cause, at least not in our own
Re:Working vs. Teaching (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the only related field for such a degree is theology. Thus, it should be a Bachelor of Theology degree, not a Bachelor of Science.
Re:Working vs. Teaching (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Working vs. Teaching (Score:5, Informative)
By that definition, evolution is not science either. It has never predicted anything and never will.
So tell me, does it hurt to be that stupid? [tufts.edu]
Re:Working vs. Teaching (Score:4, Informative)
A rabbit in the Cambrian. A fossilized dinosaur with a human skeleton in its stomach. Things of this nature are quite contrary to evolution's predictions.
Re:Working vs. Teaching (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that's the hardest part of falsifying any prediction.
When do you say "We've searched long enough, the prediction is most probably wrong"?
For instance, when do we stop looking for the Higgs boson if LHC can't find it?
Do we say the prediction of the particle is wrong or do we build a more powerful accelerator?
The most important prediction made by evolution is that we should see genetic differences between different generations of a species, that a species or race should be able to change over time and that we, with long enough observation (a small detail religious people often fail to comprehend), should be able to witness the appearance of totally new species.
I fail to see how evolution would be falsified by having dinosaurs found alongside humans or by having fossils older than we previously thought possible anyway.
That would mainly give problems to some theories regarding geology, decay of radioactive isotopes, archeology and such.
Re:Working vs. Teaching (Score:5, Informative)
I've already discussed this in detail on Slashdot, and have archived the conversation here [dumbscientist.com].
But I'll copy the most relevant part. There are several specific predictions that evolution makes:
That's what falsifiability means. There has to be some type of evidence which could, in principle, prove the theory wrong. I've linked to many many more tests in the conversation that list was taken from.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
....Please cite a peer-reviewed journal article ...
I don't need to cite a &*^%$##$% journal article written by some evolution believer, but I can do a simple experiment. I could take any number of living organisms of any type size or shape and put it them in any number of places anywhere on the planet and see if any of them becomes a fossil.
If you are honest, you would admit, because the ubiquitous presence of microbial life, you will never get a fossil unless you sterilize the formerly living matter.
Re:Working vs. Teaching (Score:4, Informative)
The Copenhagen interpretation [wikipedia.org] is commonly viewed by physicists as a way to wave all the metaphysical issues raised by quantum mechanics off to the side. As Feynman once said, "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. [regarding quantum theory]"
It's true that interpretations of quantum mechanics aren't experimentally distinguishable (yet-- I've seen some proposals in this direction that seem interesting). But that's scarcely relevant because no undergraduate or graduate quantum mechanics class spends any significant time worrying about interpretations. Most physicists focus on the predictions, which have been verified to an absurd number of significant figures. Students work problems that give real, experimentally testable answers.
It's also true that popular science books give the impression that quantum physics is mystical, and that physicists spend all their time worrying about Schrodinger's Cat. We don't. I think it's an interesting question, and personally prefer [dumbscientist.com] the Everett-Wheeler interpretation, but it's not the central issue. Be careful not to let the interpretations of the equations obscure your view of the equation itself.
Re:Working vs. Teaching (Score:4, Interesting)
The Copenhagen interpretation [wikipedia.org] is commonly viewed by physicists as a way to wave all the metaphysical issues raised by quantum mechanics off to the side. As Feynman once said, "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. [regarding quantum theory]"
It's true that interpretations of quantum mechanics aren't experimentally distinguishable (yet-- I've seen some proposals in this direction that seem interesting). But that's scarcely relevant because no undergraduate or graduate quantum mechanics class spends any significant time worrying about interpretations.
[snip]
It's also true that popular science books give the impression that quantum physics is mystical, and that physicists spend all their time worrying about Schrodinger's Cat. We don't. I think it's an interesting question, and personally prefer [dumbscientist.com] the Everett-Wheeler interpretation, but it's not the central issue.
Yes, I appreciate and agree with all of that. Which is why I've previously suggested on /. that in scientific terms most religious view points are actually interpretations. They're explanations of "how can it be like that", but you don't let them get in the way when you're doing your science.