The Florida board of education kept the lunacy to a minimum and actually approved science standards that use the word "evolution". They still had to do a goofy song-and-dance compromise to include the phrase "scientific theory of" before the dreaded "E" word, just so the creationists can go back to their churches and triumphantly crow that it is still just a theory.
It is one small step forward, at least. I'll take it. It's still ludicrous that the creationists think they achieved something by attaching the "theory" dog-whistle to the agreement.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Last November news broke of at least one Florida school district opposing new education standards that would bring the term "evolution" to the state's students for the very first time. Since that time opponents to the view have attempted to rally but never quite got their act together, and now it…
The Florida Board of Education passed new science standards on a 4-3 vote. The old standards got an F in a national survey by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, which noted errors like the claim that "a thermometer measures the amount of heat absorbed by an object," that "The classification of…
A good trick in child psychology is to come to a "compromise" in which the child, not knowing any better, gets what they think they wanted but it really turns out to be cod liver oil after all. Florida creationists got their cod liver oil when the Florida School Board voted, with a worrisome 4-3…
Florida approved science standards that actually use the word 'evolution', but as I noted at the time, the creationist compromise was that it had to be referred to as "the scientific theory of evolution". It was weird: it is the scientific theory of evolution, as opposed to the non-scientific…
Yup, they'll wake up in the morning and listen to christian radio who will call it a triumph, then watch to Fox news and TBN, who will call it a triumph, then they'll go to their christian book stores and select from books that only herald their triumph, and go to their church that says the same with all their christian friends who agree. And on and on till forever.
The Random Quote that accompanied this was most appropriate!
Those who are enslaved to their sects are not merely devoid of all sound knowledge, but they will never even stop to learn.
[Galen]
Up next... The Theory of Gravity vs Intelligent Falling!
Sure, before you know it they will usurp and bandy
"Scientific Theory Of" into "Scientific Theory Of
Creationism". "Now wasn't that easy and descriptive of
what we were trying to say all this time?" The scientific
theory of Florida as explained by way of oranges and
kitty kats by the deranged swamp morons.
I don't quite see the point of getting worked up over this. Evolution by natural selection IS a scientific theory, there's nothing wrong about describing it as such. Really what we must do is combat the attitude that 'scientific theory' is the same as any other theory, for example my theory that touching a wooden surface will bring me luck, or saying 'Good morning Mr. Magpie' when seeing the bird will prevent misfortune.
Does this mean we get to preface creationism with the phrase "the supernatural/occult belief of?"
Still, this fight ain't over. The creos are going to jam their crowbars into that perceived "just a theory" weakness and leverage it for all it's worth. Concede them an inch, they take a mile. Happens every time.
Our struggle is against oppression and the woeful unChristian persecution by secular elitists. In the Endtime, it won't really matter who won this Battle and who lost this Battle.
What will matter is on what side of the battle line One stands.
"Scientific theory" is just and proper in many contexts, but not in others.
To simply say that organisms evolved via natural selection, among other mechanisms, ought not to require attaching "scientific theory" to the word "evolution." True, it is a "scientific theory" that life evolve in that manner, but it is a well-supported theory. Just as we don't need to say that it is a scientific theory that space is warped by gravity, we needn't say that it is a scientific theory that life evolved partly via natural selection. It did, that's why we accept the theory that it did, no matter that all theories are contingent to some (often vanishingly small) degree.
I would say that I don't mind the inclusion of "scientific theory" to modify evolution if it's done in the right context, then. If it's used to suggest that it's not quite certainly a correct theory (with questions as to strength and amount of natural selection, but not about its prominent role), then it's a false disclaimer.
We need to see the context.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Perhaps The batshite insanity of...?
The expression 'scientific theory of' was also placed in the Florida standards for all other theories - plate tectonics, gravity, electromagnetism, etc., thus not isolating evolution. Now let's hope that teachers will sieze upon this and teach the real meaning and significance of 'scientific theory.'
I have to say this:
WHY did you guys call such things a "theory"? Why didn't scientists come up with a word less... you know... DOUBLE EDGED?
It was SO evident all the wackos would rape on the double meaning to subdue and confuse the masses.
did someone say 'intelligent falling?'
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
I would prefer to see things worded as evolution theory, rather than theory of, even though it doesn't make a difference in meaning, it seems to in people's minds. I'm not sure wording all theories in the books as theories of is going to accomplish much more than playing into the religious people's hands of wanting everyone to disavow ALL science as conjecture not worth listening to, because it can never provide hard facts, as they see it anyway. The reason you can get worked up is that the 'scientific theory of' title was specifically added to placate the liars. That means the good guys didn't win here, and anti-evolution minded people are going to use the "theory of" addendum to frame evolution as an unproven theory instead of one of the proven ones. Meaning they're going to do their level best to lie by omission.
The word has been in use from the 16th century, and in this specific instance Darwin used it nearly 150 years ago. You can hardly blame scientists if it has also been adopted into the common parlance with a slightly different meaning.
Well that's your theory.
Fundies are still calling the local radio station 104.1 in Orlando and saying "butt...2nd law of thermodynamics!!!!" Just goes to prove how bad our educational system really is. Still confusing evolution with cosmology and abiogenisis tsk tsk tsk!
Seriously. We scientists had the word "theory" first, and it's about time we started reclaiming it.
Actually, the standards also do a pretty good job of explaining what a "scientific theory" is:
Starting in grade 3, students are supposed to be instructed as to:
By 6th grade:
And, in 9th through 12th grades:
Between that and labeling plate tectonics, gravity, electromagnetism, etc. as "scientific theories," what are the kids going to think when their parents and preachers try to tell them evolution is "only" a theory? This could turn out worse for the creationists than if the original proposal had been adopted.
Not to mention that this heads off the state legislature that was making noises of adding "theory" to "evolution," where they would, doubtless, have singled evolution out.
I know this has been said before, but WHY are the creationists so obsessed with calling it a theory? That just makes it sound better--it's HARD for a scientific hypothesis to become a theory! Now if they wanted to call it the scientific hypothesis of evolution, that would be closer to their intended goal, even though the statement would then be inaccurate.
Those seem like excellent and eminently reasonable standards to me, and actually go a long way toward reclaiming the technical meaning of "theory" from its popular understanding. I can't imagine how the standards could be more accurate or complete (at least as reported here -- where are they available online?).
The problem is that those that adhere to argumentation based on logic and reason pose absolutely NO CHALLENGE to those that do not. It's been the same for centuries and plays out now on a daily basis. Dishonesty, deceit, and delusion are always used poison the position of the rational thinker and distort what is real. This is why marketing works so much better for them, and this is why they rely on it. I'm not saying that there are no chinks in their armor, only that there are far more in ours when debating dishonest manipulators.
Susan B. wrote: "I know this has been said before, but WHY are the creationists so obsessed with calling it a theory? That just makes it sound better--it's HARD for a scientific hypothesis to become a theory!"
I think the creationists know this very well, but they cynically realize that most of their worshipers think of the word 'theory' in a much lesser sense.
Mr. Orange from a few posts back used a very similar tactic. He took advantage of the fact that the word 'related' can mean 'blood relation' or it can mean 'common origin'. He used the first meaning to argue (falsely, obviously) that evolution teaches us that oranges give birth to dogs.
One major warning flag that you're dealing with a crackpot is an obsession with semantics. That particular obsession goes at least as far back as the Greek sophists...
You can still find the proposed standards here:
http://fldoestem.org/page231.aspx
However, they may pull them now that the final ones have been approved. (They did that with the first draft after they were revised.)
I think "dishonesty" fits much better, not "semantics".
It seems to me that Baghdad Bob would have fit right in with the creationists. The enemy is breaking down the doors and he's still saying they won.
The Florida board of education kept the lunacy to a minimum and actually approved science standards that use the word "evolution".
Yes, it's a good outcome, but isn't anybody else just a tad worried that the vote in favour of sanity was only 4:3 ?
Those points out of the standards as reprocuced above @19 are fine as far as they go. But I wish that the inevitable phrase "powerful explanation" were unpacked a little more, to give some idea what "powers" good theories in fact have. Inevitably, the treatment emphasizes the theory as an explanation, as the end-point of observation and hypothesis testing, giving the impression that the theory was the goal all along, and once it's in the bag it's time to crack a brew and relax.
But the primary benefit to a field of inquiry from having a theory is that it's a starting point --a spur to yet more inquiry. And furthermore, we should be trying to get across that one of the best indicators of good science is not that a question is now answered for all time and we can go work on something else, but that it drives more science. By this measure, it's easy to see how the theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the most successful theories of all time; and, conversely, to highlight just how vague and useless all forms of creationism really are.
Answers are sterile, no matter how "powerful." Theories live and grow.
God is the Truth. It follows that the Word of God is the Truth. The Bible is the Word of God. Therefore, the Bible is the Truth.
Since the Bible is the Truth, everything that Imperfect and Sinful Man creates and concocts cannot be the Truth.
Evolution is an idea concocted by Man.
It cannot possibly be the Truth
Therefore it must be just a Theory.
Surely, people who send rockets to the moon and who explore the Darkest regions of the cell can understand this logic?
Logic is useless when you're reasoning from faulty premises. And yours are... well, lemme cut to the chase, pal: this is gonna cost you.
Sanity had five votes, I believe. As I understand it, one of the "no" votes was someone who wanted the original proposal passed without the "compromise."
Re: Hipple
Am I on the outside of a joke, or is he serious?
Re: Hipple
If you're confused now, just take a peek at his web site. But first, be sure to don your tin-foil headgear.
Reverend, you can't possibly be this dense. What you consider the "Word of God" is a book of highly modified and selected transcriptions of a number of bronze age shepherd's tales that were probably told and recorded around campfires and in villages thousands of years ago. They had an extremely incomplete understanding of the longer term temporal processes in the world they inhabited and poor, if any, understanding of even repetitive events within their own lifetimes (for example, the sun coming up every day).
To these people the simplest answer was that one or various Gods were guiding these processes. We know better now. You should read something that is actually useful to understanding rather than always trying to subvert progress to match the understanding of ancient nomadic tribespersons.
The expression 'scientific theory of' was also placed in the Florida standards for all other theories - plate tectonics,
I was taking unit of Earth Science in junior high school -- this was in the mid-70s -- when the Indiana science standards were changed to allow the teaching of plate tectonics as the accepted theory for the disposition and arrangement of the continents. I remember it now, thirty-odd years later, because my teacher was really excited about it, and was so eager to teach it.
I remember him going on about how the Ozarks, the Appalachians, and the Scottish Highlands were all part of the same ancient mountain range, now warped and distorted by eons of tectonic activity. (I don't know whether this is actually true, according to current understanding, but I sure remember the lesson.)
Somewhere in Florida, there's a junior-high science teacher who is going to pounce on the new biology standards, and leave a positive impression on some student that will last for decades.
I'm suspicious of claims that the term "theory" indicates strong support by scientific evidence (though I'm certainly happy to be corrected by working scientists -- I am not one). Is it incorrect to refer to the Lamarckian theory of evolution, or to the steady state theory of cosmology?
I'd have thought that the defining characteristic of *theory* in science would be something like the breadth of its scope, its (purported) ability to subsume a wide variety of phenomena, etc. I'd think it would make perfect sense to speak of a theory that is utterly without empirical support.
Am I wrong?
Another place where "scientific theory" was added. More YEC propaganda handles?
"BIG IDEA 7: Earth Systems and Patterns
The scientific theory of the evolution of Earth states that changes in our planet are..." (page 51)
Is this the new standard: http://www.fcrstem.org/Uploads/1/docs/FLDOE/K-12_Proposal2ScienceStanda…
after these changes? http://www.fldoestem.org/Uploads/1/docs/FLDOE/Change%20Summary%20for%20…
Oh, come on now, folks. Hipple is on the same page as blogs4brownback and blogs4huckabee.
Put on your humor filter, folks.
Sheesh.
Re: "the Darkest regions of the cell"
You means cells have a place the sun never shines?
John Pieret: And the best part is that there's no way that anyone on the religious side is going to read all of that. ;)
@Ray M & Traffic Demon: You're on the outside of some of the best snark on the intertubes. The Good Reverend Hipple's political satire is righteously righteous as well.
MikeM @ 38, that's one of the conundrums of satirizing cdesign proponentsists. Sometimes it's hard to tell if it's humor or "honest" stridency.
Oh thank FSM.
@34 "ignorant goat herders etc"
What part of "Inspired by God" do you fail to comprehend? It wouldn't matter if a cloud of mold wrote the Bible, just so long as the cloud of mold was Inspired by God.
With God's Inspiration, His people can do wonderful things.
For example, look how God called Rep. Tom Tancredo to the illegal immigration problem just a few short years ago.
As a result, we have Deportation numbers running at record highs, and real prospects of completing a secure, impenetrable and fully mined Border Fence by 2011.
@39
Yes, I am referring to the Protoplasm, the impenetrable (holy) Life Force of the cell. That which is in unborn little baby boys and girls at the moment of conception, if not earlier.
Here's the Reverend's blog entry for our favorite media whore.
But the rockets got there because of our pathetic and worthless theories!
Earlier, indeed. So what's so great about conception?
@47
Conception is an Act of God. It is the Moment when God creates an unborn baby girl or boy.
I would say that is pretty darn great.
Oh, Rev. Hipple.
Why does conception only occur when a man and a woman fuck?
Couldn't God conceive of a less crude and icky, more Godly sort of conception?
@49
Nice try, buster. I run a Youth Ministry and am not easily offended by gutter talk.
Lawks! Land o' mercy!
Did I really write "fuck"? I so did not mean to write so ugly a word as "fuck"! It was a complete slip of my fingers!
I meant "put the man's pee-stick into the woman's vay-jay-jay".
Please forgive me, Rev.
But I do want to understand why God is so in favor of adorable little baby boys and girls being the result of fucking.
It wouldn't matter if a cloud of mold wrote the Bible, just so long as the cloud of mold was Inspired by God.
I had to snicker at that one. A cloud of mold with a pencil behind its "ear."
No one has the right to not be offended. All ideas have the right to be tolerated. Sound ideas deserve to be investigated. Unsound ideas deserve to be eviscerated.
@53
Thank you Brother or Sister Alex. That is all we are saying.
I dunno, the messy bit beforehand can be immensely satisfying.
Conceive, geddit? Funny. Didn't god come in a shower of gold (as opposed to a golden shower which is something else entirely) to Danae? Is he the same god that came upon Mary as the holy spirit? Doesn't matter I suppose. One myth is a good as any other.
Faith is a vice.
It seems to me that the whole birthing process would have to take place away from the village, since it's so darned unclean. And stay away for a week why don't ya, you placenta dumping filthettes.
Hooo Boy! From what I see in this
article, Florida has *really* gone off the deep end with the fact/theory distinction:
Hate to break to y'all, but not only is Newton's law of gravity disputed it has been proven false! That's what Einstein did with his "theory"!
Ay-yai-yai! [Strikes forehead with palm of hand.]
It's just steeped in idiocy:
Because you aren't scientists, you moron! And you have no idea what you're talking about! The point that's relevant for a science class is that there's no scientific controversy. Idiot! Crap for brains! (Help me out here, Truth Machine.)
@45
Earlier? Do go on, Rev.
P.S. and thanks to Traffic Demon @32 for asking and MikeM @38 for answering - after the first Rev post I checked out the website(bring UR AK47 when U wurshup the baybee Geezuz!) and didn't know if Rev was yet another loony-tune or a bona fide genius like the guy who does the Lego thing: http://www.thebricktestament.com/.
Is that like divine bukake?
What part of "Inspired by God" do you fail to comprehend?
the made up part?
The brick testament.. -lol- cartoons to satisfy the sheeps intellectual curiosity.
Susan B. writes:
Because if evolution is "just a theory," then it's not proven, not necessarily true, not something anyone has to believe in, or be taught, or prefer over some other imaginative hypothesis.
I see a lot of stumbling over evolution as fact and evolution as theory. Of course it's both fact and theory. My home town paper published a couple of well-meaning editorials excoriating the Dover PA school board for their creationist silliness. But although the editorials correctly refuted the "it's just a theory" argument, they wrongly conceded that evolution was not a fact. The fact is, evolution happened and is happening. There's a theory that explains that fact. What the "just a theory" folks don't seem to understand about theories is: theories explain facts. And calling a theory a theory -- "just" a theory -- doesn't make the facts go away.
If I may rant: there are two things here. There's the observed historical fact of biological evolution, and the theory of evolution, a creation of the human mind which explains it.
There are theories of gravity, of star formation, and many other things. Inaccuracies in the theories do not stop gravity from working or stars from forming any time the humans discover they've got their sums wrong.
All the complaining in the world about the theory of evolution doesn't scratch the historicity of evolution itself. Indeed, even the creation museum promotes evolution as a historical fact, although they have some remarkably counterfactual beliefs about its timing.
Biological evolution was becoming clear during the 18th century, with the development of paleontology and Linnaeus' Systema Naturae in 1735. Georges Cuiver established the reality of extinction with his 1796 papers, and William Smith developed the principle of faunal succession with his geological map of England around the same time.
So by the time dear old Chuck came along, the fact that living species have extinct relatives was well established. the big question was how it worked.
The reality of biological evolution was well established by the late 19th century, even if not always called "evolution". Darwin's work explained it and popularized the term.
God is the Truth. (Premise fails. (Premise asserts that God exists. God does not exist, therefore, failure))
It follows that the Word of God is the Truth. (Now thats just a really complex and troubled assertion based on a failed premise)
The Bible is the Word of God. (Also a very tenuous assertion at best, ignoring already that failure of the 1st premise)
Therefore, the Bible is the Truth.
Since the Bible is the Truth, everything that Imperfect and Sinful Man creates and concocts cannot be the Truth.
(Now thats just bad logic. You've failed to assert that all men are sinful and imperfect (infact you can find a very interesting example in the entire new testament) For instance, man created computers therefore computers = false?)
Evolution is an idea concocted by Man. (Here is the largest failure in your logic (other than asserting God exists). Evolution is a natural process and is not "concocted" by man. it is the state of nature. saying this is like saying gravity was concocted by man)
It cannot possibly be the Truth
Therefore it must be just a Theory. (just like the theory of gravitation, cell theory, circuit theory, atomic theory, theory of truth, music theory and the extreme value theory)
Surely, people who send rockets to the moon and who explore the Darkest regions of the cell can understand this logic? (You seem to assert that we are very skilled for doing such things. Why is it then that the vast majority of these skilled persons do not accept your argument?)
So, in order to APPEASE the creationists, they FRAMED the standards in a particular way?
And PZ is happy about this?
#67 I guess, from what I understand, they're still going to keep teaching evolution, only now they'll put an emphasis on the fact that it's a scientific theory which will then hopefully lead to some much needed classroom discussion about why a scientific theory is different from what people seem to think they mean.
And the dopey Creationists can feel self-satisfied that they won some kind of victory that, like most things they believe in, only exists in their head.
I don't think so, no. What the creationists wanted was to single out evolution for special treatment - explicitly label it a theory, while all other theories were left alone. Instead, what's happened is that all scientific theories have had the theory label explicitly added. So instead of giving the impression that evolution is more suspect than the others, the standards place it on equal footing with gravity, germs and atoms. It's not appeasement, so much as 'be careful what you wish for.'
Gee, people are being bogged down by the fact that Evolution is being called a scientific theory ?
And what ? It is afterall a scientific theory.
What counts is that it is the only valid one, the only one which explains the facts. And the only one which is taught in schools.
What the creationists / ID folks really wanted is that their imaginary "scientific theories" also be taught in schools so that children may decide for themselves (or let's better say, that their parent's brainwashing not be incompatible with what is taught to their children in school).
Well bad news, now children will be able to get back to their brainwashed parents and say :
- Dad, my teacher said that all the evidence points to the fact that human beings and monkeys have evolved from a common ancestor.
- don't listen to your teacher, darling. Because that's not true, as the Bible says so.
- but Dad, it's the only valid scientific theory, so he must be right.
- that's what the scientists think, but they are wrong, because there is a lot of evidence that confirms the Bible.
- but Dad, that can't be true, otherwise, they'd also teach that in Science class.
- just stop it now. I don't want to hear this nonsense anymore. And pray to god that he doesn't hear you, otherwise you will be punished.
- ...
So, yes, children will be able to decide for themselves, and start teaching their brainwashed parents something.
MartinM said:
I prefer to think of it as the Wages of Ignorance. If they had bothered to educate themselves on what the term "scientific theory" actually meant they would have know that no scientist has a problem with the term "Theory of Evolution" given in the proper context (a context which the Florida science standards insist is properly taught). The phrase "hoist by their own petard" springs cheerfully to my mind.
Physicalist quotes:
Erm, maybe I was taught physics completely wrongly at school (remembering my old physics teacher this seems highly unlikely to me but physicists here are welcome to comment) but, quite apart from the Einstein issue doesn't that law typically go by the name of . . . gasp Newton's Gravitational Theory?
I was reading some news stories about the decision and stumbled across this story on MSNBC.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23242336/
A careful reading shows disparaging comments thrown into the story. Typical of those LA folks up in The Panhandle.
Religion and believers should be studied much like a toxic algal bloom that stifles all other life in their immeadiate environment. Hopefully, they like a red tide, will suffer a complete population crash after a spurt of exponential growth. Imunization by science and reason is the only known form of prevention and control. Unfortunately there is currently an ecosystem of about 4200 species of religions, so it might take a while for all of them to become extinct.
Making sure that understanding the concept of theory in the scientific sense is a part of the public educational curriculum is the equivalant of a vaccine against irrationality. As a Florida resident I'll take that for now.
Ah, but that's one step away from learning what the term "evolution" actually means, and then where would they be?
Strictly speaking, Newton's law of gravitation is part of Newton's theory of gravitation.
This whole issue brings back unpleasant memories of explaining to creationists on multiple occasions that Einstein's general theory of relativity trumps Newton's law of gravitation, seeing said creationists accept the point...then a few days later start whining about 'only a theory!' all over again. It's almost as though these mantras they repeat over and over - just a theory, no new information, no transitional fossils etc etc ad fucking nauseam - aren't actually connected to anything that could be reasonably described as a thought. I mean, in principle, they represent reasoned arguments that, if the facts of the world were completely different, would actually make sense. But in practice, they seem to be used more as magic words to ward off the evilutionary spirits.
This would explain why one creationist, upon finally realizing that the freqeuent debates were all going one way, hit upon a brilliant new strategy. Unsurprisingly, this did not involve researching new, more logical, fact-based arguments. Rather, the plan was to call upon Jesus to bind the demons which were so clearly guiding their opponents.
You can imagine how well that went.
MartinM said:
Mwhahahahahaha! Doesn't he realise that the great demon FSM and his new sidekick Beelzebufo give us perfect protection against his feeble Jeebus!
Lilly,
you have Newton's law of Gravity, or better said, Newton's law of universal gravitation, which is an analytical statement (the inverse square law).
It is also refered to as Newton't theory of universal gravitation, because in this case, the theory consists mainly of that specific law.
It is still called law, despite the fact that, since Einstein, we know that this law is only accurate when the gravitational potential of the attracting body and the velocity of the gravitating body are sufficiently small.
Actually, having the word theory there is a victory.
Question authority.
I don't asume that my professors have my interests at heart.
Quite the contrary.
I know they don't give a rates ass about most of us.
Your English professor certainly didn't. Nor anyone whose responsibility it was to teach you how to make a coherent point.
Fernando,
"Making sure that understanding the concept of theory in the scientific sense is a part of the public educational curriculum is the equivalant of a vaccine against irrationality."
Ok, but here's the problem, some people would need a triple dose of that vaccine being injected every n years in order to avoid being irrational.
And what if "irrationality" was a partly "genetic disease" ?
Proper science education is very important, but let's not fool ourselves, it won't erradicate irrationality.
In France, where I am from, we've been teaching children "Natural Sciences" in the general curriculum (from age 13 to 18) for at least 40 years (what Florida will be starting now).
And unfortunately, we still have our fair dose of "irrationality". It seems to be a VERY resiliant disease indeed...
Negentropyeater
True, but it certainly helps, especially when taught correctly as a system for describing and discovering more about reality, rather than as a set of discrete "facts" given without the reasons why we accept them as such (an approach which is still distressingly common in some school science classes in the UK at least).
I have no problem with stating that it is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY; that actually means something and should bring prestige to the title. A theory will always be a theory, it doesn't 'move onward'; it just becomes more and more a theory! :)
Lilly,
but you know what is really, really strange, is that when exposed to the ideas behind natural selection
(there is heritable genetic variation / Parents over-proliferate / Succesful offsprings are the ones best adapted to the environment),
some people get it, some just don't.
I mean, Natural Selection is such a simple, brilliant idea, and yet, most people just don't get it. You can repeat it 100 times, it won't help. Why is that ?
I remember years ago, when I was first exposed to this in Natural Science class. We had this really nice teacher, and when she explained this to us, and she did a very good job, you could tell; there were those who got it, and those who didn't. There is something in the logic, the intuition, that some people simply miss.
Speaking of the theory of evolution, am I the only one who watched Nova last night?
Wow, that was fantastically entertaining. There's an excellent chance they won over a few evolution-deniers last night.
"Ape Genius" is the name of the episode.
Mike, Nova is one of the few shows worth turning the TV on for, and yes that show about "Ape Genius" last night was excellent. An ape making and using a spear to hunt meat is rather shocking. I doubt that any evolution-deniers even know what Nova is let alone have enough smarts to sit and watch a science show that would challenge their preconceived ideas of what a "monkey" is or what that same "monkey" can do. I think we should face the fact that the majority of people out there can't get past reality TV and that the WWE isn't real. I work with one young chemical worker that had no idea what lunar meant. This same worker unloads tank truck loads of extremely hazardous chemicals on a daily basis, makes a person nervous to say the least. The dumbing of America was a complete success.
"This was a triumph.
I'm making a note here,
HUGE SUCCESS!
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction!"
And what if "irrationality" was a partly "genetic disease" ?
Proper science education is very important, but let's not fool ourselves, it won't erradicate irrationality.
nope, but it's a rather large and important step in "treatment". Aside from direct removal from influences that contribute to irrationality, can you think of something else that can contribute as much?
I loves me some Carl Hiassen!
I resent your use of the word "crow", those are very intelligent birds.
Ichtyic,
"Aside from direct removal from influences that contribute to irrationality, can you think of something else that can contribute as much?"
Nope !
@Ray M & Traffic Demon: You're on the outside of some of the best snark on the intertubes. The Good Reverend Hipple's political satire is righteously righteous as well.
Here's the Reverend's blog entry for our favorite media whore.