Texas School Board Searching For Alternatives To Evolutionary Theory 763
An anonymous reader writes "[Ars Technica] recently reviewed the documentary The Revisionaries, which chronicles the actions of the Texas state school board as it attempted to rewrite the science and history standards that had been prepared by experts in education and the relevant subjects. For biology, the board's revisions meant that textbook publishers were instructed to help teachers and students 'analyze all sides of scientific information' about evolution. Given that ideas only reach the status of theory if they have overwhelming evidence supporting them, it isn't at all clear what 'all sides' would involve."
FSM (Score:5, Insightful)
May we each be touched by his noodley appendage!
Re:FSM (Score:4, Interesting)
I find complete harmony in both evolution and creation, but then I study the original Hebrew and Aramaic in addition to following science. Most Christians shit their drawers when I talk about Christs use of - and most atheist start trying to impress me with the skeptics bible which seems to be written by Beavis and Butthead. No need to choose either, when you can harmonize both.
Re: (Score:3)
"I find complete harmony in both evolution and creation..."
So, how do you do that? And what does it have to do with studying original Hebrew and Aramaic? And what is this skeptics bible you mention?
Re:FSM (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a very long road. ,study of Hebrew, Aramaic,Apocryphal books and early Christian and Gnostic writings, translations , their implications and politics come from a need for more knowledge. I've seen Issac Asimovs book floating around P2P ,if this is out of print, as it was written in 1967. Be a good soul and make a donation to somewhere worthy in his name if you should download it. The understanding you gain will be in direct ratio to your hunger and effort.
The easy part is an understanding of evolution, most people have a basic knowledge of this.
The harder part is an understanding of the Bible as a book of history as well as the word. To do this and dispense with the nonsense of being asked to believe impossiblilities is to understand what it is you are looking at. Primarily it is a history book, an understanding of world history of Israel and pre- Israel and it's surroundings, politics and how this history survived in spite of being destroyed and by word of mouth and through translation is essential. A good place for the beginner to start, with an author familiar and enjoyed by most is to acquire a copy of the two volume set " Azimovs guide to the Bible" and let the scholar begin shining a flashlight around the dark for you. Later
As for the "Skeptics Bible, it is an Atheist book by book refutation of the Bible done with all the rigor you would expect Beavis and Butthead to put into "disproving" the Bible as the word. Laughable, I think you can find it in full on some website. Just as lazy and argumentative as you would expect, but gives some insight into what is lacking in Atheism.
For me to share my faith with you would be to write a book. I'll instead let you discover and decide for yourself.
Re:FSM (Score:4, Insightful)
Primarily it is a history book,
bullshit.
its 100% fiction and you bloody well know it.
its no more history than zeus and the roman/greek stories.
NO MORE.
who, today, would argue for ANY 'historical' basis on greek/roman mythology?
and note, we ALL call it mythology.
why can't you accept that yours is also at the SAME exact level?
because you were raised on it? is that any reason at all? honestly?
Re:FSM (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh I see you haven't done any rigor either.. You would find some world history and literature classes beneficial.
This is the problem with religious nut jobs. Because you have something missing in your life that your fairy tale resolves, you think everyone else is in the same boat too. I've got a fairly good grasp on history, and not just middle eastern history. And in the when you put all of human history over thousands of years into context, the bible is merely one text in thousands that all have the same old myths in them. Nothing special there, just a brief footnote that yet another primitive culture believed in magic invisible goblins at the bottom of the garden, just like all the rest of them.
Re:FSM (Score:5, Insightful)
..." insight into what is lacking in Atheism."
Actually, the only thing lacking in atheism is a god.
Re:FSM (Score:4, Insightful)
Significant contributions to history.
So ... what significant contributions has not collecting stamps made? And what contributions would you expect?
Re:FSM (Score:5, Insightful)
Sort of hard to make significant contributions to history as an atheist when revealing yourself as one gets you burned at the stake isn't it? The other choice is pretending to believe, in which case your achievements go down in history as some of the great achievements of _insert religion here_.
Re:FSM (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FSM (Score:4, Insightful)
The harder part is an understanding of the Bible as a book of history as well as the word.
Before we even get that far you need to tell why I should even care? Just I feel no need to watch Desperate Housewives, Harry Potter, or study Barraiya, Maui, or Asmat, why would I even waste my time with these fairy tales?
As for the "Skeptics Bible, it is an Atheist book by book refutation of the Bible
Again who cares? Atheism isn't a religion (I know this is obvious but it seems to be a hard point to get through to some people). If one Atheist decides to publish some crap doesn't mean anyone else believes it or cares. In fact most literature I've come across on Atheism is a waste of space. Personally I find historical study to be a lot more fulfilling when you learn from an independent point of view, rather than any one particular fairy tale.
Re: (Score:3)
Because, as this story demonstrates, enough people care about religion that it has a potential effect on your life. You can argue that this shouldn't be the case, but that won't stop it from being so. And that leaves you the choice of either understanding these "fairy tales" - and thus the reality the people who believe them operate in - or having your ab
Re:FSM (Score:4, Insightful)
religion [ri-lij-uhn]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
(from dictionary.reference.com)
As atheism includes no beliefs, it falls under none of those definitions.
Oddly enough Atheism is a religion, an irony that I love to pull out and poke into soft flesh.
Yeah, we've heard about members of the catholic church and their child abuse. But no, atheism is not a religion.
The ability not to speak of it without sounding like an idiot is understandable from someone idiotic enough to believe in some imaginary being.
Re: (Score:3)
My belief that you're a twat has no theistic relevance and does not concern the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Insulting you is merely a personal pleasure and does not demonstrate religious beliefs.
I'm fine with people believing in weird shit. Go for it. But don't tell me that I need to research more or have faith or learn about your god or trust that you're right. Don't teach your lies to children. Don't embed the population control mechanisms made up by other people that share your beliefs i
Re:FSM (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll drop sports and such under def.1 for fun.
Saying someone's sport is their religion is an indicator of their devotion to it and/or a satire on religion (depending on your perspective). Sport isn't a religion.
Atheism includes the belief that there is no creator
No. Simply, no. Why the fuck do people keep getting this wrong?
Atheism is the lack of belief that there is a creator.
However, comically I just checked dictionary.reference.com and it actually agrees with you: .the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
1
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Clearly written by a religious nutjob :)
Atheism (taken to its etymological roots) means 'no god'. That infers nothing about belief. I do not have to believe that there is no god, in the same way that I do not have to believe that there is no flying hippo, or that there are no ghosts.
Note that although I also don't think there's any evidence of extra-terrestial life, I do accept its possibility and likelihood. I don't believe in it, but I wouldn't be surprised if we were able one day to provide evidence (at which point I still wouldn't believe in it, because I wouldn't have to).
Such is the nature of belief, and the lack of belief. I do not believe in god. This makes me an atheist. It does not require me to believe in a negative.
Re:FSM (Score:4, Insightful)
Atheists "believe" there is no god, when we differentiate between what we know,think,feel and believe.
I am an atheist. I do not believe there is a god. I do not need to believe there is no god.
Re:FSM (Score:4, Insightful)
pop culture atheism you got in the parking lot outside the Slayer concert
Wouldn't that be more likely to be a hotbed of satanism?
I could go on, but I'm not providing a longwinded education for you.
You're not providing any education. You're merely regurgitating shit that's utterly fucking irrelevant. The first testament is a hotchpotch of myths, legends and stories that date back ten thousand years, none of which demonstrate the proof of any deity. The second testament is even less reliable and has been heavily post-edited by people intent on making it give some perceived legitimacy to their ability to exploit ignorance.
Re:FSM (Score:5, Funny)
You got it backwards. With the Catholic church, they touch *your* noodley appendage!
Re:FSM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the whole RCC anti-science thing wasn't really theological but more political. The church had tons of political and economic power and didn't look kindly at people willing to rock the boat. There wasn't that much opposition to Copernican theory until Galileo's time, and the tipping point most likely was Galileo appearing to insult the pope. The new anti-evolutionary stance in Texas also I think is primarily political in nature, as it is an "us versus them" position to which US politics has diminish
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The RCC's doesn't include the requirement that believers take every word of scripture as "the one true and unerring word of god".
Actually, they technically do. Their doctrine is that the Bible is wholly and completely true AND that science is discovering God's work in creation, and if you think one contradicts the other, you're misinterpreting at least one and should reinterpret them as necessary until they agree.
It's nice that they don't go shouting down (or imprisoning or killing) scientists (anymore), but it's still a pretty big stinking pile of intellectual dishonesty. It's almost tantamount to flat out saying "The Bible is unfal
Re:FSM (Score:5, Insightful)
Catholics are definitely no Biblical literalists, and have chosen to interpret Scripture allegorically where it appears to contradict science. Most Catholics believe that the kind of truth that the Bible is supposed to have is of a different type than that sought by science. For instance, they generally interpret the story of Genesis about God breathing life into the dust of the earth and creating humans that way as not an explanation of how human beings came to be (as Biblical literalists like the Texas School Board that are the subject of the article would), but rather an explanation of what human beings are supposed to be in relation to God.
Re:FSM (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, they technically do. Their doctrine is that the Bible is wholly and completely true AND that science is discovering God's work in creation, and if you think one contradicts the other, you're misinterpreting at least one and should reinterpret them as necessary until they agree.
This is not entirely true, as I understand it, and I'm lead to believe it was a subject of some debate at the second vatican council, which rather cautiously made the following statement: "the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." Which is to say that they acknowledge that the bible may be in error regarding issues which God did not wish to teach us for the sake of our salvation. See Brown et al, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary page 1169 for further discussion of this idea.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not going to defend Evangelicals, but explain to me how the doctrine of transsubstantiation is a parable, or that of the trinity, or any of the other metaphysical "facts" claimed to be true.
If there were a mainstream Christian religion which took the entire Bible as just parables with no actual claims of fact to it, I might still be a Christian today. The New Testament has a lot of nice stories in it (the Old one not so much), good food for thought, and a decent role model in that Jesus character. But t
Re:FSM (Score:4, Insightful)
Theories of "gravity" and electricity under review (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh. There's just no cure for stupid. Full disclosure. I live in Texas and yes, this embarrasses me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No there is a cure, this measure just actively fights it.
Re:Theories of "gravity" and electricity under rev (Score:5, Insightful)
When I visited Texas I noticed that half the people were really cool guys and the other half were assholes. Of course most other places were like that but Texas took it to extremes.
Re:Theories of "gravity" and electricity under rev (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know if you ever heard this, but everything is bigger in Texas. I'm surprised that you are surprised.
Hey, quick question. Do you know how to tell if someone is from Texas? You don't have to, just let him talk long enough and he will tell you.
Re:Theories of "gravity" and electricity under rev (Score:5, Funny)
Never ask a man if he's from Texas. If he is, he'll tell you soon enough. If he's not, there's no need to embarrass him.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. I've screwed up behind the wheel. I've scared myself shitless a couple of times. I've never blamed it on other people though. I know that I screwed up, I knew it immediately. Self examination and honesty helped me to LEARN FROM MY MISTAKES, and I became a better driver.
Chumps who blame other fools for their own inadequacies never learn, and they can't improve their performance.
Such people will probably become a statistic some day. The only bad side is, they may well cause someone else to becom
The theory of gravity is under review :) (Score:5, Informative)
Gravity is a very active area of theoretical study. We don't understand what it is very well, and there are strong indications that General Relativity is not complete, that we need a better theory to fully explain interactions, particularly on the quantum level.
You may be confusing the theory with the fact. The fact of gravity is that objects attract, or on a more human scale, that things fall down. That is something you can just observe, sometimes without meaning to. The theory of gravity is to explain how and why the interaction works. That one we don't have nailed.
Not trying to support Texas here in their unscientific bullshit, but gravity is not an open and shut case. What its method of action is, how it works on very small and large levels, and how it unifies with the other forces are still not well understood.
Re:The theory of gravity is under review :) (Score:4, Insightful)
I was treating it as a boolean issue (i.e. gravity exists). Kinda like evolution.
Re:The theory of gravity is under review :) (Score:5, Insightful)
Well most of the god-tards have moved on from disputing that things evolve. Rather their new shit is intelligent design, which says that god works behind the scenes, controlling how things evolve and change. So they aren't disputing the fact that change happens, they are disputing the theory as to why.
However their counter is not a theory, since there is no way to test it, and hence has no place in science class. Even if it is right, it is not science as it is not something one can test. Any time you mention god, by definition outside of the universe and untestable, you aren't talking science.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean their theories have.....*puts on shades*....evolved?
Re:The theory of gravity is under review :) (Score:4, Informative)
Not really. He is basing them on their actions.
You have to be quite stupid to believe the things they do.
Not Bigoted, Just Frustrated With 'Tards (Score:5, Insightful)
In all fairness, within the standards of the /. community, "god-tard" is a term of art, rather than a sign of bigotry and narrow-mindedness. The frustration level when dealing with people who do not seem to be arguing in good faith on teaching evolution is high, and gets higher the longer it continues and morphs.
I believe the core issue the Texas Board and their fellow travelers struggle with isn't with scientific evidence of a particular theory, but rather the conclusions that some choose to draw from that evidence. A child's perception of God and Nature is necessarily challenged as he matures. Some resolve that struggle by denying God, some by denying what is discovered during study of God's creation.
The majority of the Texas board seem to be the latter.
Re: (Score:3)
A child's perception of God and Nature is necessarily challenged as he matures.
Indeed, as the child gradually realises they've been lied to by people that should know better.
I'd prosecute priests, immams and rabbis for child abuse.
Re: (Score:3)
"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including age, disability, dissension from popular opinions, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, political alignment, race, region, religious or spiritual belief, sex, or sexual orientation.
Some people care more about being right than abstinence from hating people. I don't think calling someone a "godtard" necessarily means that you hate them or are intolerant of them. Well, at least, not any morso than calling anyone stupid does. I think it is only when one is lobbying for reduced legal rights does it cross over into bigotry. I don't care when anti-gay activists say gay people are going to hell, that's just ignorance (because they don't). When they oppose equal rights for
Re: (Score:3)
Well most of the god-tards have moved on from disputing that things evolve. Rather their new shit is intelligent design, which says that god works behind the scenes, controlling how things evolve and change. So they aren't disputing the fact that change happens, they are disputing the theory as to why.
However their counter is not a theory, since there is no way to test it, and hence has no place in science class. Even if it is right, it is not science as it is not something one can test. Any time you mention god, by definition outside of the universe and untestable, you aren't talking science.
And you are just as bad as they are. Calling them "god-tards" just shows how bigoted and closed-minded you are.
Pot, meet kettle.
No, I have come to the conclusion that people that believe in stuff that isn't real, ie "faith" that they are mentally unbalanced, not of a sound mind. Now a lot of people that claim they believe in god don't actually do. They are just conditioned to say that from growing up. Some people find it hard to shake stuff they have been told from childhood, some don't.
Zeus and all those other gods were as wild as their namesakes. They were just aspects of nature that wasn't understood, but given human/god
Re:The theory of gravity is under review :) (Score:5, Insightful)
And atheists are different? Big bang was the atheist answer to God for nearly a century. Now it's the expanding vacuum. Those theories don't answer the question of "is there a creator?" any better than a theology.
You're asking the wrong question. The correct question is not "is there a creator?" but, "where does the evidence lead?"
So far, the evidence doesn't lead to a creator (i.e., a god).
Re:The theory of gravity is under review :) (Score:5, Insightful)
The very idea of a creator doesn't make sense. Say God created the universe, then you have to ask what created God? If you are willing to believe that God is eternal then why not just believe that the universe itself is eternal?
Re: (Score:3)
We all carry models of reality around in our heads.
Some of us like to share our models and call them science. Some of us like to share our models and call them religion.
Personally, I like the science type of model when it comes to figuring out how stuff works. I think the religion type of model has some interesting things to say about the world also, although for my 2c more about human nature and being a person than how stuff works.
Those folks on the Texas BOE, they are dangerous though. Someone ou
Re:The theory of gravity is under review :) (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they certainly are. Atheists don't have or hold a belief in a god or gods. That's all. From there, they vary enormously.
No. Big bang is a scientific theory, currently the best performing one there is (that could change, and that's fine), that has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism or "God", any more than big bang would be offered, or taken, as "the answer" to Santa Claus or any other made-up story character.
First of all, those theories are not attempting to find such an answer. They are attempting to describe how the reality around us, as is, developed as far back as we have evidence for, albeit extremely indirect, diffuse evidence. Nowhere in actual cosmology, which is what we're talking about here, does the issue of god or gods arise. It's a physics question, not a question of superstition.
Secondly, it's a pointless, valueless question. It's on exactly the same level as "is there a Santa Claus?" There's zero evidence for such a thing, despite thousands of yeas of looking for same, so, other than writing fiction or cult-building, there's no reason to assume there is one, and therefore no reason to worry about whether there is one (or several.) When you concern yourself with it, you're simply self-identifying as a cultist or an intellectual lightweight [fyngyrz.com].
The day theists have evidence, they've changed the game, and everyone -- including atheists -- will be utterly fascinated to examine that evidence. Until then, theists are in a boat that isn't so much intellectually leaky, as sunken.
Re:The theory of gravity is under review :) (Score:5, Insightful)
Utter nonsense. Morality is a social force within a society, it has zero to do with if there is a god, or not. Furthermore, if the only thing keeping someone in line morally is the idea that some "god" will punish them, they are a disgusting excuse for a socialized human being. The rest of us -- you know, the ones that actually think -- tailor our morals to the benefit of those we love, those we care about, and those who may have an effect upon us. And yes, to ourselves. But the idea that putting one's self forth first in case of morals is the endgame is ridiculous. Set your neighbor's kid on fire, and your career in moral experimentation is over, and check it: absolutely no god required.
No, see, here's what you're missing. Atheists don't care what theists believe, though they may well indulge in sympathy or pity. However, all the laws that the religious cults have gotten onto the books, all the restrictive social policies based on theist superstitions... not to mention witch burnings, irrational prejudices against various lifestyles, see, those we care about, and since they're coming from theists, we've learned to be quite wary of them.
Consequently, we've got self-interest to consider, as well as the interest of our kids, that theist superstition be stamped out. And we're happy folk today, because that's exactly what's happening. We'll keep up the pressure, and some day, no doubt well into the future, but some day, the normal public and legislative reaction to a declaration of religious belief will be nothing but laughter.
Re: (Score:3)
The questionchanges everything we do if there is a creator. Without one, morality is not an issue. With one, morality becomes important.
Crap. That doesn't even hold up to the slightest bit of investigation. Catholics priests [wikipedia.org] believe in a creator yet they'll happily fiddle with kids. How does that fit in with your hypothesis? How about evangelical ministers? [wikipedia.org] We don't even need to go into serial killers, mass shooters, or even the regular everyday rapists and murderers who fill our prisons who believe in a creator. The claim that morals require magic fairies is a myth. The most peaceful and prosperous nations on earth also have the highest rates of atheism. I know this doesn't fit in with your belief system, but that's the problem with reality, it doesn't care what you believe.
Re:The theory of gravity is under review :) (Score:4, Informative)
Eh? The Big Bang theory was proposed by a Catholic priest. It is most definitely not the atheist answer to anything.
Re: (Score:3)
1. Design by an intelligence is required to explain some characteristics
2. Evolutionary processes are required to explain some characteristics
This is just the facts of reality, easily verified.
I disagree that 'design by intelligence' is required to explain any characteristics of plants, animals or other 'living' things, except those genetically fucked around with by humans.
Unlike the guy with the poorly kids I can cope with a hypothesis that states, "Intelligent Design has occurred", but I've seen no evidence that it has been done by any agent other than men of science. So my hypothesis is "Intelligent Design has occurred without human involvement".
I've seen no evidence that contradicts the theor
Re:You have a logic problem (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It doesn't. It works on a story of a creator. There's no evidence for one; there's no way to test to see if there is one; there's no way to test to see if there isn't one (it's not falsifiable); there are no predictions re effects upon reality that arise from the idea; etc. Theism is in no way qualified as a theory. Theism is speculation, no more than that, in terms of its value in quantifying reality.
A reasonable atheist will simply inform you of the complete lack of evidence to back up the speculation, and, if you fail to do so, as all other theists from day one have failed, will assign no value whatsoever to your speculation.
Of course, not all atheists are reasonable. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Just as theists vary from really nice people who you'd like to play cards with, to people who fly into buildings and set their wives on fire.
Re: (Score:3)
No. The universe existing is evidence that the universe exists. It could have been here forever, perhaps expanding and contracting in repeated cycles; it could have arisen as a purely deterministic event; it could have been a probabilistic event. None of these ideas require a god or gods. Inasmuch as there is no evidence whatsoever for a god or gods, William of Occam's razor tells us where to look: and it's not for god. You come up with evidence for god (or g
Re:You have a logic problem (Score:4, Interesting)
What I find interesting is that most atheists are just like religious extremists. Their belief is right and no amount of facts will change their mind.
What facts do you have that should change their minds?
Re: (Score:3)
Dead right. Show me signs of god and I'll believe. Sign. Just one.
But I see nothing that would let a reasonable person believe in Zeus, Odin or the Abrahamic god.
This may be especially difficult as there are plenty of signs man made this up. We call it "documented history" and examples abound. You won't hear about this from a religious school, but that doesn't mean it exists.
If you want to play in science you have to use the same things to make it rigorous, that is you need to try to falsify, or disprove yo
Re:You have a logic problem (Score:4, Insightful)
That is a fabulous and well thought out answer, and I mean no offence by anything I say beyond this.
You proved evolution in your own answer (beaks changing etc.). Now we're just discussing the degree of change evolution offers, which is not quite the point.
If things can evolve a little, then it follows that with time (and assuming the changes don't lead to a dead-end, or that changes in its environment do not change faster than the creature/plant can evolve to adapt), it MUST follow, that with enough time object X will eventually become very different from starting object Y.
I hope I clarified my position
Re:The theory of gravity is under review :) (Score:5, Funny)
Good sir or madame,
you are operating in an entirely different dimension--string theory?--that the "theory" of evolution doubters in Texas.
Just like gravity, we can see HOW evolution occurs (genes), why (mutations give survival advantage), etc. You can do MATH and run numbers and it works.
We "discoverd" DNA in like the 1950s. So it's relatively new. It's complicated.
But it's real.
Gravity is real too. Yes, it seems that every day we are discoverning some weird new anomaly. But do you "doubt" gravity, and maybe want to propose that the turtle that holds up earth (the TOP turtle only, please) is pushing "up" so we all go "down"?
I see the point you are trying to make. But go to the School Board Luddites who are pushing the bible as a science reference, present it to them, and they might burn you at the stake. They are superstitious, essentially, so why not?
Re:The theory of gravity is under review :) (Score:5, Insightful)
And who really cares whether gravity IS an "open and shut case"? Students should be taught to think critically anyway.
Einstein changed "open and shut case" Newtonian physics.
Copernicus and Galileo changed the "open and shut case" of a flat earth.
Even the "open and shut case" of what causes ulcers (stress) was later found to be bacterial.
A large part of science is all about critical review of "open and shut cases".
Re: (Score:3)
Einstein changed "open and shut case" Newtonian physics.
This is wrong for several reasons. Firstly, Newton himself wasn't happy with the implied action at a distance part of his theory. Secondly, it was known since Maxwell that there was no way that EM equations could support a standing wave from any frame of reference. Third, there was an anomaly in the orbit of Mercury that was inexplicable according to Newtonian mechanics.
Hardly open and shut at all.
Copernicus and Galileo changed the "open and shut case"
honestly? (Score:5, Insightful)
do something about it
it's only like this because not enough texans like you are agitating about this
i would bet a majority of texans agree with you. the problem is a highly motivated, highly vocal minorty highjack the process and the majority is quiet and complacent about the whole nightmare
you need to get involved. you get the texas you deserve. so put some effort into it, kick these militantly ignorant morons off your school board, and restore texas to the modern world
Re:Theories of "gravity" and electricity under rev (Score:4, Informative)
As TFA is about schools, let me offer this explanation:
It's not about critical thinking to test a false theory.
Within the school environment you have a certain amount of time to teach a subject. If you teach two 'versions' of it (one true, one false) to gain critical thinking, you halve the amount of time to teach the Quite Obviously True (TM) version.
If the answer comes around to God Did It, it should be taught in Church, not school
Texas would like to think of it as a hypothesis... (Score:5, Insightful)
...or maybe a theorem. Or a rumor.
Maybe a wacky folk story.
"Darwin's Wise Tale of Evolution"
Re: (Score:3)
Let's just call it Punctuated Equilibrium [wikipedia.org]. They'll never catch on to it - too many fancy words and complex diagrams. Should keep the school board busy for a while.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. It's because the voters are victims, or frauds [fyngyrz.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Texas would like to think of it as a hypothesis or maybe a theorem. Or a rumor. Maybe a wacky folk story. "Darwin's Wise Tale of Evolution"
Perhaps we should repay the favour and think of Texas as a work of wacky fiction too (not a very good one though because it the story seems too unbelievable). In this case though I'd suggest "The Land that Time Forgot".
Re:Texas would like to think of it as a hypothesis (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of homosexuals procreate, lots of people who have abortions have kids. Abortion and infanticide may actually preserve a generational line in times scarcity, in that resources can be concentrated on existing children. Homosexual people procreate in heterosexual relationships all the time, and use IVF or surrogacy to procreate in homosexual relationships. The world is a little more complicated than you think.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Homosexual existence is mostly considered evolutionary good because the people without children will be more charitable towards others and will help a whole village to raise all of their children better. This of course does not work in the West any longer, but this way of life is still quite strong in India I believe (and where most of the studies are conducted). The homosexual gene is passed on in the villages and societies who do better on a whole. As long as the homosexual gene never creates a whole gene
Re: (Score:3)
One moral to evolution is that if you, through social pressure, effectively compel people who wouldn't normally be inclined to have children, due to genetic reasons, to do so, you make those genes more common.
Kind of ironic, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(*double take*) You think evolution is a philosophy?
That's pretty smurfed up.
Re: (Score:3)
I can explain. It is kind of like sickle cell anemia. While it is bad for the person who has it, the presence of the gene is a net benefit for populations in the tropics. Because if you only have one copy, you become highly resistant to malaria!
In fact, here is something you can take to the bank about “genetic diseases”. All of them have some benefit, even if the benefit is only to people who got a single copy of the gene. If you think about this it make perfect sense, why would a gene with
Actually, it's abundantly clear! (Score:4, Insightful)
Alert the Nobel committee (Score:3)
The Texas School Board will be happy to accept their prize for turning biology on its head.
What about God? (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, as long as history and science classes have to give arguments on both sides about the existence of God.
It's very clear... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheap books (Score:3)
Textbook publishers take note, you'll sell Texas a ton of books if you pander to our religious beliefs in your science books.
Perhaps but you are not going to be able to charge much if your text book on electromagnetism just contains the single sentence "Let there be light.".
While I'm not supporting Texas -at all- (Score:3, Insightful)
It is incorrect that ideas only reach the status of "theory" when there's overwhelming evidence. A theory is a theory because it makes a testable, falsifiable, hypothesis. We have theories that aren't well tested. We don't go teaching them in science class, but that doesn't mean they aren't theories. This idea that "theory" means "proven beyond any reasonable doubt" is silly. It doesn't.
For that matter, some things get called theories that aren't. Like String Theory. Not only is there no proof, there's no testable predictions. As such right now it is a hypothesis. It is a neat bit of math, internally consistent, but so far there are no testable predictions, no way to falsify, so it isn't really a theory. We don't want to go teaching it in high school science class yet, but we do want to keep looking at it.
The reason why all the god backed proposals aren't theories is they aren't testable, aren't falsifiable. They rely on an entity that by definition is outside of the observable universe. As such they can't be tested and thus are not scientific theories. They could be right, but they still aren't science. Science is concerned with the testable. A testable, falsifiable, hypothesis is a theory. Heck even after it is falsified it is still a theory, it is just wrong :).
Re:While I'm not supporting Texas -at all- (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. You're equivocating for the same nonsense of the creationists.
This isn't true at all. You're redefining theory as the sole progenitor of hypothesis. You've got it backwards, there, chief.
The National Academy of Sciences lays it out for you:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2 [nap.edu]
Re:While I'm not supporting Texas -at all- (Score:5, Informative)
It is incorrect that ideas only reach the status of "theory" when there's overwhelming evidence. A theory is a theory because it makes a testable, falsifiable, hypothesis. We have theories that aren't well tested. We don't go teaching them in science class, but that doesn't mean they aren't theories. This idea that "theory" means "proven beyond any reasonable doubt" is silly. It doesn't.
A hypothesis is a testable, falsifiable conjecture. A theory is arrived at by testing one or more hypotheses in a model and finding them not to be untrue. You are correct that there are theories which have not been exhaustively tested. The TOE is not one of those. A shitload of observations in many fields support it - or rather, do not support an alternative to it.
The "two sides" (Score:3, Insightful)
As I see it, the "two sides" are this:
1. The assertion "evolution occurs", which is testable and extensively tested, which science overwhelmingly supports and very few theists have any issue with. It allows inclusion of all of the specifics of evolutionary theory regarding plausible mechanisms for biological change, specifically and appropriately to the degree valid science calls for.
2. The assertion "only evolution occurs", which is untestable and unscientific, and seems to have as its only apparent benefit that it's seen as a necessary premise for atheism. Need causal exclusivity to be true, therefore it is, need it to be scientific, therefore it is, though it factually fails on both counts.
The only real questions are what one specifically means by "evolution" in a given presentation, and whether that usage bears scientific scrutiny--and managing to stick with that usage in the face of an opportunity to make a non-sequitur argument for atheism.
Re:The "two sides" (Score:5, Insightful)
Although the assertion "only evolution occurs" is dodgy science, there still is not a single fact about the shape and nature of life as we observe it which is not explanable by evolution.
So you might say that the default position is to assume that only evolution occurs, because no other mechanism has been found to be necessary.
Re: (Score:3)
Ahh, but the interpretations are just fancy wrapping around what is actually the theory: the mathematical framework, and the bits you measure. I would argue that interpretations are completely irrelevant: you could say that an interpretation of Newton's theory of gravity is that angels are responsible for pushing bodies towards each other as a proportion of their mass and inverse proportion on the square of their radii.
It's a daft interpretation, but doesn't change the maths.
I agree with Barbara Cargill (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a scientific alternative to Darwinism. It's called Lamarckism. And it's something that *should* be taught alongside Darwinism in biology classrooms.
Prophet Profit! (Score:3)
I like this idea because I can change the cover and resell their textbook as a comedy book.
All sides == Punctuated Equilibrium vs. Gradualism (Score:3)
Lordy lordy! (Score:3)
Jesus these jumped up apes are chattery!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing NOT an opinion in science, IF you actually follow the scientific method, is the certainty that all evidence is biased by the ignorance of the individual putting it forth.
NEVER confuse the model with reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What we observe is nothing but a model as well.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not even sure I understand what you're saying here.
But if I have two oranges and you have two oranges and I give you mine, it's not open to interpretation as to how many you now have.
One persons bias is worked around by never relying on one person. People try to disprove as much as prove any theory. When we run out of other explanations we tend to think we've arrived at the answer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why would anyone voluntarily live in Texas? (Score:4, Funny)
Sure, but for the first 10^-19 seconds of the expansion of the universe inflation was merciless.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You think Texas is bad, try California or Illinois. At least Texas can more or less balance a budget and follow the Constitution.
I've lived in both Texas and California (but was born in neither).
Guess where I choose to live? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't start with T.
Re:all sides (Score:4, Insightful)
If it was a good theory then it would be *testable*. One could use it to make reliable predictions about generational change in short lived animals based on whatever the factors are that induce change.
Can't we though? Let's employ some of that science-y method-y stuff.
Question: Does selection pressure as described by the theory of evolution result in observable changes in the makeups of colonies of microorganisms?
Hypothesis: It do.
Method: We will use antibiotics on bacterial colonies, introducing a selection pressure against those strains most susceptible to the antibiotics. If that "natural selection via random mutation" thing works, individual bacterium that are resistant to antibiotics may exist. These individuals will be more likely to pass on their genetic information as the non-resistant bacteria will have been "selected against." We will look for emerging strains of antibiotic-reistant bacteria.
Result: Yup, that happens.
Conclusion: That whole "natural selection" thing exists.
Ipso facto, QED, science, BA-DAMN where's my Nobel?
Re: (Score:3)
Evolution is an excellent theory and it absolutely can and does make testable, reliable predictions about change in a population of short lived organisms... it's been done so many times that there are elementary schools that do experiments with fruit flies showing exactly what you suggest is impossible. And that's to say nothing about things like long term e.coli. experiments [wikipedia.org] which produced the exact mutations that the researchers expected (which surprised exactly no one involved) before the e.coli. evolve
Re:all sides (Score:5, Insightful)
Evolution can't tell me what conditions to subject rats to so that I end up with something that isn't a rat.
Of course it can. You just have to understand that long term evolution is a macroscopic process resulting from changes in DNA. Increase the mutations, breed many generations, and expose those generations to selective pressure. It's really not that hard to understand. And "isn't a rat" is a fairly silly, non-scientific, though also easy to determine. The definition of a species is somewhat subjective, but generally is that members can interbreed and have fertile offspring. Change the rat's DNA so much that it can breed with other organisms with that change but not original rats and there you go.
And it can't tell me how many generations it'll take
That's an even sillier argument. Theories of statistics can't tell you how many tries it will take to get heads when flipping a quarter, but that doesn't mean statistics is not testable. If I told you I'd give you 1:10 odds (ie. you get $1 for a $10 bet) that the next coin flip is heads, would you take it? How about if I gave you those odds that over 1M coin clips the results are between 0.49 and 0.51? (Hint: you should take the bet. And that's a prediction).
And anyway it basically can tell you how many generations it will take - it will take as many as necessary to cause exactly the mutations needed to achieve the change you are looking for. You might be able to speed that up via mutagens and increased selective pressure, or once (it's only a matter of time) humans can trivially map the entire gene sequence and function for an organism and have the technology to modify them, it could be one generation (as it is these thing are already being done, just not as efficiently as they could). But it's all the same to the DNA.
Evolution can't tell me where to dig to find a creature whose bones are part way between a form believed to be a descendent of another.
Yes, it can. That's how so many of the existing bones have been found in a relatively small region of the world. Archaeologists didn't just dig billions of random holes around the planet and cross their fingers.
And it can't reliably tell me what those bones will look like when I do find them.
Seriously, just give it up. You don't even need to be a biologist to prove this statement wrong, 5 minutes on Google would do it. Sigh. Will there be the occasional surprise? Absolutely, because due to its underlying mechanisms some aspects of evolution are RANDOM. But if you think that disproves anything or discredits the theory, back to that coin flipping experiment for you...
Re: (Score:3)
Edison was an inventor. To my knowledge he didn't discover any scientific theories, but rather applied existing scientific theories to make new inventions.
Darwin was a much more notable scientist (i.e. someone who figures out how the world works), than Edison. Edison was a much more notable "applied scientist" (i.e. someone who figures out how to build things using science).
I can't think of a single scientific discovery made by Edison. Please let me know if you can think of one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
so why not have both, cant we all just get along?
Because while some people are out there trying to answer the questions of what makes anything we experience, happen, there are people out that that actively get in the way of such research because they are afraid that the answer will not be:
You cant have the universe without G-d
Re: (Score:3)
The "Manny-worlds" theory only applies to universes in which everyone is named "Manuel," or in which only men provide child care services.
Re:What the school board doesn't understand is... (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a comment a couple days ago quoting someone who said "all that's left in physics is the fifth decimal place" or something similar, the same is true for evolutionary science. What's cool is that you can teach it that way.
First decimal: Evolution is how diversity on earth came to be, it's organisms changing from one generation to the next until they are different species. (A lot of people knew that much before Darwin even came along).
Second decimal: Evolution is powered by natural selection; organisms that are successful are more likely to have offspring. (Basically what Darwin came up with, along with a few other naturalists of his day)
Third decimal: Sexual selection, gender wars, kin selection (a bunch of stuff Darwin came up with to some extent but wasn't to sure about)
Fourth decimal: Genetics (if Darwin knew about genetics he would rage at the heavens questioning how people could still not accept his theory)
Fifth decimal: Horizontal gene transfer, latent retrovirus DNA, gene regulation (stuff we are just beginning to understand the importance of)
The problem occurs when all you learn about is the first decimal, then say to yourself "but God did it" and ignore the rest or "but what about his aspect!?" and assume that your objection isn't resolved at a deeper level than you currently understand.
Give It Time (Score:5, Interesting)
Er did someone evolve an intelligent life-form in a lab from a lesser organism while I wasn't looking? I am all red in the face. I must have missed that monumental announcement.
That's very cute. And, you're not addressing what the parent said. In fact, you can go into a biology lab and watch evolution happen over the course of tens of thousands of generations of bacteria. Evolution at the level of virii and bacteria occurs quickly. The more complex the life form, the longer it takes for visually obvious symptoms of evolution. But, thanks to the fine focus provided by current genomic lab techniques, you can see signs of human evolution within historical times. No third arms or eleventh toes, sorry, but real change nevertheless.
Again, what we're dealing with isn't God-centric creation or not, but dogma and magic wand waving v. what is observed to be occurring. It may be that a Christian God caused the HIV to arise and target gays, or it may have been outhouse (bad) luck, but the observed mechanism was still evolution.
Re: (Score:3)
The grand majority of atheist traditions have a tendency to start with the assumption that people in the past were all idiots and had nothing worthwhile to say at all.
This is an unfortunate assumption you're making. It's BECAUSE of great pioneers of the scientific method (invented back when people still believed lightning was something akin to the gods partying) that I know that your "2000 years of observable evidence" isn't... observable.