The Brunswick school district is still arguing about teaching creationism. As is typical, the usual clueless ideologues from the community are getting up there in front of the board and babbling. Look at this argument:
The topic came up after county resident Joel Fanti told the board he thought it was unfair for evolution to be taught as fact, saying it should be taught as a theory because there's no tangible proof it's true.
"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?"
That statement makes no sense. The slower evolution is, the more difficult it is to see the slow changes within the brief period of recent time. He has answered his own question! The second clause is simply raw ignorance, though, since we do see organisms evolving now. Bacteria, insects, lizards, birds…we've got lots of examples in organisms with shorter generation times than ours, and we even have molecular evidence of genetic changes in humans in the last 10,000 years. Is Fanti Italian for "Fool"?
Worse, though, is the fact that members of the school board are buying into this nonsense. They want to stuff creationism into the curriculum, somehow.
Board attorney Joseph Causey said it might be possible for the board to add creationism to the curriculum if it doesn't replace the teaching of evolution.
Schools' Superintendent Katie McGee said her staff would do research.
Babson said the board must look at the law to see what it says about teaching creationism, but that "if we can do it, I think we ought to do it."
WHY? This is idiotic.
I think the square root of 9 is 27. I think that idea ought to be shared with the students in arithmetic class. As long as it doesn't replace the teaching of the dogmatic opinion that the square root of 9 is 3, I think we ought to do it.
I think Moby Dick was written by Herman Shakespeare. I'm pretty sure we can find lots of Ph.D. experts in literature who will tell you that Shakespeare was the most important writer in our language, so I see no harm in promoting his importance further. If discussing Shakespeare's extensive temporal contributions to American literature doesn't replace a few a few American authors, it ought to be possible for the board to add my theory to the curriculum.
Creationism does not belong in the curriculum because it is wrong. Teaching is not a process of pouring random noise into the brains of young people and allowing them to pick and choose what they want to believe — it's about giving kids a solid rational foundation for learning. Teach them lies and you've poisoned their minds for a lifetime, and here is a school board actively promoting harm to their charges.
For another take on teaching both sides, read some advocacy for teaching the controversy from a biblical point of view. Detailed dissection of the different claims of the book of Genesis will sow doubt in the minds of the students.
However, I disagree in one way — that doesn't belong in science class. Spending more time teaching the garbage of chapter 1 of Genesis, and more, adding instruction in the garbage of chapter 2 of Genesis, is still teaching garbage, and giving too much time to nonsense. It's useful for teaching that the Bible is an untrustworthy source, but that should not be part of the agenda of a science curriculum.
I'd like to see the kiddies learning that the Bible is incoherent trash in Sunday School.
- Log in to post comments
I live in NC. Like Texas, there are pockets of intelligence in a vast ocean of stupid. Brunswick is obviously part of the sea of stupid.
Quotemined as PZ wanting (himself or the state) to dictate what churches can teach in 10, 9, ...
Jebus, these dolts haven't learned anything from the Dover decision (I watched Nova's Judgement Day again last night). They need to be reminded that in the Dover case, the defendants ended up having to pay the plaintiffs their legal costs, which were over one million dollars. And the school district will lose. They have already set up the establishment issues with their discussions to date.
No, it's the plural of a well-known soft drink — “Can I have two Fanti and a Coke, please?”
Why does the US persist in letting people who lack any experience in either the specific subject, or in education, have a say in deciding the curriculum ?
The link, and quotes, are from the first Star-News article on the issue, back in September.
To my knowledge, the board was far less receptive (overtly, anyway) to the idea of adding creationism at their November meeting. Has there been a January update on that?
Hey, where is everybody this morning? At church?
I bet PZ could save a lot of time by just having a "stupid" form, and just filling in names and cities.
If ignorance was good for me, It's good for children, too;
If I get by not knowing bupkus, so by god can you.
Them science types, they use big words--don't understand a bit.
I'm happy with Creation, cos it keeps me dumb as shit.
If Darwin's evolution says we're all just beasts and brutes
There's no room for religion, or for spiritual pursuits.
Creation puts us humans at the top where we belong
Besides, don't want my kids to learn the fact that... I am wrong.
Why should they? The Dover decision is not in the Bible!
The right wing fundies targeted the state boards of education, which are elected bodies in most states. These are down ballot offices and not much electioneering is done by candidates, so it was a good target when you have a built-in base of churches who can (legally) invite you to appear and share your platform. One way to get good science into the education curriculum is for us to counteract the targeting by the right wing fundies - get good people to run and get people to vote for them. One thing we can also do is start publicly demanding that people running for boards of education, either at state or local level, meet some basic qualifications. Push this in letters to the editors. Go to public meetings and publicly oppose creationists to the board. If we want better boards of education, it's up to us to make it happen. PZ and other scientists give us the materials to use, but it really is up to all of us to make our voices heard at the ballot box and in public meetings. Even in Texas and other southern states.
More stunning (or not-so-stunning) arrogance from the ideologues.
I think it's about time to make billboards and signs on the sides of buses saying :
THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY! ID/Creationism is NOT science!
Just put it out there! In plain English.
*head explodes* Um how about: because it's going so slow . . .you can't see it. (I know I'm being redundant as PZ had already pointed this out, but WOW!!)
Did no one learn anything from Dover? Hello where are the lawyers? In this case I think we need to send some to N.C.
LOL! Man, you're really on a roll today ;-)
Whilst it would be good if Dover stops attempts to have creationism taught as science in schools in the US, I cannot help but think it would a good result for a bad reason.
Creationism should not be taught in science classes, not because it will lead to civil lawsuits that those proposing the teaching of creationism will loose, but because it is bad science. When the decision on what to teach as science is based on legal precedent rather than scientific understanding then something has gone seriously wrong.
That is what happens when there is fizzy-headed thinking.
Unfortunately no. It means infantrymen.
Fine, Brunswick, your students will no longer be accepted at NC colleges and universities. Happy now? That's how I'd handle it. Get the colleges and higher learning institutions involved and fight from the top down. NOTHING causes a drop in property taxes and home values like a school system that produces students that are not accepted at the higher levels.
Better schools = better opportunities for the children of the tax paying parents. If the schools are not producing students who are accepted into college, then no one will want to move there and the school board and community will lose their precious tax money.
Hit them in the wallet, it always works.
Staphylococcus aureus has a nasty habit of evolving resistance to various antibiotics. It was the first bacterium in which penicillin resistance was found, in 1947 just four years after the drug started being mass-produced. Methicillin then became the antibiotic of choice. MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) was first detected in 1961 and is now common. This left vancomycin as the only effective agent available at the time. However, strains with intermediate levels of resistance began appearing in the late 1990s. The first documented strain with complete resistance to vancomycin, termed VRSA (Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) appeared in 2002. Half of all S. aureus infections are resistant to penicillin, methicillin, tetracycline and erythromycin.
You don't have to be two million years old to see evolution in action. All of the S. aureus antibiotic resistance evolved during my lifetime.
I think the bible is a crock of fermented bullshit. I think that the controversy surrounding the bible's accuracy should be taught in sunday schools. Actually, the last time that there was a big debate about the bible controversy, it was called "The Hundred Years War" I don't see why fundies are so eager to manufacture just one particular controversy around evolution when there are much cooler and potentially bloodier controversies they know so much about.
Oh? How does he know that he wasn't here then? If the only way somebody knows something is by being present when it happens, then he couldn't know anything about what happened 2 million years ago, including the fact that he wasn't here.
Those of us who accept reality have no problem with saying things about what happened when we weren't around. We know that there was a burglar in our house when we were away, when come home to find the front door kicked in and our valuables missing. We know that evolution happened 2 million years ago, when we see the evident results of it. And we know that Fanti wasn't here 2 million years ago because we have good evidence that no human has lived that long. We don't need eyewitnesses for any of those, because we have good evidence - evidence better than eyewitness reports - for their reality.
I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said.
I bet he wasn't there 2,000 years ago, but still believes in the bible. Epic Fail.
PZ,
IIRC, you mentioned some time ago (in the spring?) that you give some basic background on scientific vs. non-scientific arguments/methods in your bio classes, at least at introductory levels. (I suppose this has stuff like disproving spontaneous generation and so forth.) Could the genesis "histories" be mentioned there, as disproven examples? On the other hand, are there better, more instructive "bad" examples of natural histories?
Pedant alert:
Square root of 9 is plus or minus 3.
That was a useless post, but while I'm here...
The slow evolution line might be the most succinct summary for the stupidity and ignorance of the ID/Creationism movement ('movement' being the operative word)
@Cuttlefish, OM in #8
(my apologies, I don't see an email link to Cuttlefish)
Marvelous poem, I'd like to quote it on my blog, but I don't see an attribution. If you wrote it, may I have permission (and correct attribution), please?
Related to the thread here, I just wrote about a similar situation and a commenter posted that children should learn biology, NOT evolution, which should be left up to parents to teach or not. aarrgghh!
I must've got that from my Pop.
How dangerous a tactic would it be to encourage The Fundies (my apologies for using that pejorative, to any rational persons who live along the Fundy Shore) to keep trying to sue to force creation-jism to be taught in USgov schools? A priori they will lose in court and lose money. How much does that actually weaken them, or strengthen the side of reality? What are the risks of a backlash or temporary setback, and how much would that strengthen them or weaken us?
Actually, the last time that there was a big debate about the bible controversy, it was called "The Hundred Years War" - Marcus Ranum
Actually, not. The Hundred Years' War was a dynastic struggle, in which the kings of England attempted to assert control of France. There were no significant doctrinal differences between the two, although I think they did argue about who should be Pope. You're perhaps thinking of the Thirty Years' War, 1618-48 - although even that was by no means a straight Catholic vs Protestant affair. The French Catholic Bourbons used Protestant opposition to the Hapsburg Emperors, led by the Elector of Saxony, to undermine Hapsburg power.
Ben Breuer,
As another bio teacher, I can tell you that it would not be okay to say that in a public science classroom. You could give a broad example and mention a few old creation myths that no one believes anymore as examples of non-scientific ways of figuring out the world, but you would likely (and should) be taken to court for saying that the Bible was disproven by science in a science class.
Part of what makes it so easy for us to win every court case in the past 30 years about this issue is that we leave religion out of the science classroom altogether. If atheistic science teachers start shoving atheism down the throats of our students, then we have no case for keeping religious teachers from shoving their beliefs down students' throats. Better to leave it out altogether.
Luke Templer
Cuttlefish has a page at
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/
While we're at it, somebody hasn't been crashing the weblogawards:
Come on, we've got a reputation to uphold:
http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog/
BC (#10) said ... "The right wing fundies ..."
If you're going to go after religious people, at least remember that there are plenty of creationists on the left as well. Just as there are atheists on the right too. Creationism is not limited to one political party.
I would see it as a step backwards. The validity, or not, of scientific theories are not something that should be decided in a court of law. Although courts are normally expected to follow legal precedent they are not always required to do so. A perverse verdict in favour of the creationists, even if overturned on appeal would be hugely damaging.
Then there is issue that the creationists can argue the decisions made against them are based on legal technicalities rather sound scientific reasons. It would also send the wrong message about the correct forum for carrying out debates over scientific disagreement.
A few years ago, I spent 10 days in NC undergoing technical training for my job. The equipment we work on is quite expensive and complex. One day another trainee brought up science, a discussion ensued which ended with the trainer saying "I like science and all that, I use it everyday at work, but it is _just_ a theory".
My eye popped out of my head - I never thought I would be the one to say "it's not good to talk about religion at work ...", but I did, quickly followed by "... though science we can talk about, why is that?" The trainer changed the subject of course.
NC has some powerful stupid.
To be "fair" to Mr. Fanti, I think that idiotic statement makes perfect sense to him. I suspect what he meant was the crocoduck version of evolution. Since we don't see any (ridiculous) hybrid transitional forms today, evolution must not be going on now. And we ought to see them since evolution is so slow--in other words, species ought to spend a lot more time in crocoduck phase.
Of course, the argument's still stupid since it implies that he thinks evolution used to occur in the past and is supported by crocoduck fossils (something I'm sure he doesn't believe), and since it involves crocoducks. And that's the charitable interpretation of what he meant.
I am not aware of there been any great number of creationist on the left. What the left does seem to have is a larger number of cultural relativists, and those who regard science as just one of knowing, no more or less valid than any other system.
Actually, it might be worth trying to try to slip a bill through in some place where the Creationists aren't active right now but might get so in future; mandating that if any creation myth is taught in schools, then at least one other creation myth, and preferably the local indigenous one, must be taught for comparison.
Or if you are a biology teacher in a school in a district where teaching Creationism has been ruled acceptable, teach the local indigenous creation myth yourself!
It's my guess that the Christian funda-mentalists might be a little bit less keen to see Creationism taught in schools if it also meant kids would be exposed to another, equally riduculous hypothesis.
I don't believe I've met a single creationist who was even a political centerist, let alone a leftist. I will admit I haven't met every creationist, but the vast majority, at least in the U.S., are quite conservative politically and socially.
Fribbling imbeciles, in other words.
I'm definitely looking up this Herman Shakespeare guy.
Marcus Ranum @ 20: Fermented bullshit is a wonderful thing; it's composted manure and it makes your plants grow large, nutritious, and tasty. The Bible, however, is good only after a long sojourn in the compost pile as well (watch those slick, plastic-coated covers, though).
The article is already from September 2008 or so, nothing new to report. move on.
Pedant alert 2:
the plural of "Fanta" (soft drink) would be "Fante", not "fanti".
"Fanti" does mean "infantrymen", but nothing forbids that an infantryman be a fool also.
And since we are talking about it, You'll be delighted to know that Letizia Moratti, former Italian Minister in charge for Public Education, expressed her own concern that children should not be taught that "man comes from monkeys", although she did not say she doesn't "believe" it. I think I'll remember her name for a while.
OT rant: I've seen a guy in a TV quiz who did not know what pi is.
I think that the overall problem is that shame is dead.
Quite.
I am not so sure it is dead as misapplied. Being an intolerant homophobic moron is something to ashamed of, and yet all to often it is the homosexual who is made to feel shameful.
If you're going to go after religious people, at least remember that there are plenty of creationists on the left as well. - Brian Rookard
Such as?
I'm completely with Matt here. Science is decided by the court of nature. We don't want to be faffing around in lower courts (such as SCOTUS) if we can help it.
Ummm... just to point out, TFA is from back in September. IIR, there was a followup at the next meeting where the lawyer said "don't be idiots". There's also this followup in November.
FThatA: At the Thursday meeting, Joel Fanti, a Southern Baptist chemical engineer, made another appearance, like he said he would, and proposed that the board add creationism to the world history curriculum. Fanti had asked the board in September that creationism be taught alongside evolution, but now said he recognizes the teaching of creationism in science class would be defeated if attempted. He proposed, instead, that the board adopt a curriculum that would make evolution “defend itself” in science class. “It needs to be thoroughly examined, it needs to be broken apart,” Fanti said.
Board members, excited about his proposal in September, made no comments this time around. Board Chairwoman Shirley Babson said after the meeting that she hasn’t seen any curricula that would challenge evolution.
The community of Historians should begin long-term preparations to defend any claims of events prior to 4004 BC. It's inevitable once we succeed in nailing shut the science classroom against creationism that they will move to social studies and abuse the limits there. On the other hand, PZ should apologize to the school board for the re-run. Even the Brunswick County Ignoramus (the modern version of the Village Idiot) hasn't hit the news for the last two months. Or does PZ have word from someone on the scene?
It seems that an other Herman was quite the poet. I also think this Herman is the result of a not so intelligent designer.
It's my guess that the Christian funda-mentalists might be a little bit less keen to see Creationism taught in schools if it also meant kids would be exposed to another, equally riduculous hypothesis.
Broadly speaking, this is how FSM started, with the dial set to 11: Instead of going to the bother of choosing amongst the myths, invent a new and obviously-absurd one. Then demand it also be taught.
The reaction of the 'merkin taliban isn't to contemplate the point, but to attack the inventor et al. (browse the hate e-mails at the FSM site).
Wish they'd obsess over some other part of the bible, like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "True religion is feeding the hungry and comforting the afflicted".
Clearly, Southern Baptist chemicals include stupid oxide.
Emmet, are you saying that stupid can bond with oxygen?
What is that atomic weight of stupid?
It is evident in the palin set. They have become empowered and believe that the new intellectual is, well, them. Stupid is chic, ignorance is mandatory, opinion all that matters.
Science is a terrible barrier to that. their belief doesn't allow for snowmobiles or oxycontin, latex or the aircraft.
How do you argue with someone that doesn't understand the components of the blanks they shoot? Then give them real ammo. It isn't working out. Norway is full.
I think it may be time to go church to church, and demand that that they also teach evolution, not to replace creationism, but just to show BOTH sides of the controversy. Stay the hell out of my kids' science classes, and I'll stay the hell out of your church, fair?
Matt Penfold: "Why does the US persist in letting people who lack any experience in either the specific subject, or in education, have a say in deciding the curriculum ?"
I think it's because people in the US have also been infected with the corrosive notion of "egalitarianism in all things". The masses now believe that no matter the subject, their opinions count just as much as anyone else's.
It's also due to the American Celebration of Willful Ignorance. I truly weep for the future of this country.
I suppose I am, although I have no evidence other than that the stupid burns.
I'm not sure exactly, but it's very dense.
Presuming that creationism becomes part of a districts school curriculum, wouldn't this mean the state is paying twice for the same religious indoctrination? Once directly through the school budget and the other indirectly through federal tax exemptions on church budgets for catechism classes (or equivalencies like church lectures ...hack....sermons)? Why should the state, in essence, pay twice for the same thing? Clearly opponents should recognize that there ought to be a law against this sort of thing.....wink wink.
I agree with BC. We all need to get more politically active.
Hey, not all creation myths are equally ridiculous. For example, there is one Amazon tribe whose creation mythos holds that humans descended from Howler Monkeys, which, considering that these people had no knowledge of Africa and African apes at the time, ain't too bad.
If we are going to teach these myths in science class, we'll need to develop some kind of reliable measure of ridiculosity, say a scale, perhaps, from 1 to 10, with peer reviewed criteria for each gradation.
How about this: for every proposal that schools need to "teach the controversy" in order to be "fair and balanced" in the name of "academic freedom", why don't we propose that Sunday school should do the same?
We must "teach the controversy" surrounding the Bible's accuracy -- or are they willing to admit that Sunday school isn't meant to be "fair and balanced", and that they're only interested in "academic freedom" when it frees them to promote nonsense over verifiable truth?
Although your personal experience matches mine, the data suggest the divide isn't as great as many might assume. This Gallup poll on creationism puts it at 60% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats as believing God created humans as is within the last 10,000 years. (Then there's the Dem-majority Louisiana state legislature...) So they are out there.
Clearly we must stop teaching history, at least that part of it that occurred before Fanti was around to see it happen.
@Raytheist #25--
Everything I post here (unless otherwise explicitly stated) is the work of my own fevered imagination. Everything is fair game for re-posting; indeed, it is encouraged.
Attribution is, as Brad@#30 says. Author is Cuttlefish, site is http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com.
And thanks!
"The topic came up after county resident Joel Fanti told the board he thought it was unfair for evolution to be taught as fact, saying it should be taught as a theory because there's no tangible proof it's true. 'I wasn't here 2 million years ago,' Fanti said. 'If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?'"
As Johnnie Mack would say: You can not be serious!! It seems to me that citizen Joe Fanti has just provided a superb example of the desperate need for public evolution education. Such stunning ignorance of that which one bothers to publicly oppose is positively breathtaking!
#36, AJS suggests introduction of bills requiring at least one other creation myth in states where creationists have not yet made attempts to influence science education. At first such ideas may seem appropriate, but they are not. For example, there has been at least one attempt a couple of years ago (in Indiana? I can not find the reference at the moment) was made to introduce a bill requiring only evolution in science courses. It failed.
If we oppose legislation that calls for specific topics in public schools (such as creationists constantly propose), then we should not do the same. This is apparently the view of NCSE. Curriculum content should be left to professional educators, not legislators.
proof that lack of education is no hindrance to making intelligent observations.
though I long suspected that mythologies and "folk-wisdom" make less sense the further they are removed (geographically and in time) from their origins, thus rendering the 3 Abrahamic religions completely irrelevant and senseless.
Citizen Z,
Thank you for bringing that article to my attention. I sit corrected.
As I said, both left and right have creationists within their parties. And if you look at the other options in the poll provided by Citizen Z ... fully 77% of Democrats and 92% of Republicans believe that god is involved in one way or another.
So again, no, it is not just "right wing fundies."
why would you suggest that "kiddies" read such morally ambiguous content? the bible contains all kinds of violence and sexual immorality, and i'm not sure that kids should be exposed to such mature content.
and i'm not sure about this "incoherent trash." it's only incoherent trash to the people who treat it as such. when you actually study it a little, it's neither incoherent, nor trash. it's a very valuable collection of ancient literature, albeit a little jumbled because of years of editting. but a good, real, academic education on the bible would actually prevent a good deal of creationism. when you know a thing or two about it, it's hard to see it as an accurate depiction of much of anything.
What do either of those parties have to do with the left? ;)
If taxpayer-funded public schools are required to teach creation myths, then it is perfectly reasonable for the state to require all tax-exempt churches and Sunday schools to teach evolution and/or critically analyze their creation myths.
If you're not going to pay taxes, and you want to define the public school curriculum, then we get to define your theistic curriculum. How does "teaching the controversy" sound now, pricks?
"'If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?'"
I bet that was more teleological thinking at work, i.e.
evolution is slow = it isn't "finished" yet = we should still be seeing it "do its thing"
Brian Rookard @#31 wrote:
Matt Penfold @#35 wrote:
'Tis Himself @#37 wrote:
Brian Rookard is correct that creationism is not limited to one political party: as Citizen Z (#61) noted, in Louisiana, Democrats in the legislature approved the antievolution bill (in stark contrast to Florida, where voting was split along party lines). I think it's a matter of the leadership of the young-earth creationism movement in the United States, however. To my knowledge, these people are, overwhelmingly, members of the Religious Right. Putting aside state Sen. Ben Nevers (D), who sponsored the Louisiana academic fraud bill, who might be seen as a creationist leader on the left?
Mr. Fanti's quote reminded me of this, for some reason.
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/07/07/funny-pictures-i-have-the-dumb/
Someone should set up a School Board Education Task Force, with the mission to go wherever a school board displays unacceptable ignorance, and educate them.
Or there should be admission tests for school boards.
Seriously.
here's another article during the limbo time when the 'infantryman' first caused a hubbub and the November article when we saw it had fizzled out
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20081010/ARTICLES/810100242/1004
And also, an article with the headline: republicans sweep brunswick school board seats http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20081105/ARTICLES/811040239/1004
"What is the atomic weight of STUpid?" [Breaking the two letter convention on elemental naming for obvious reasons)
We know by experimental evidence that Stu is VERY dense.
We know Stu is both resistant to change and volatile. I suspect it belongs in period VIIb of the periodic table. We know that it volatilizes at low temperatures, but then immediately undergoes an exothermic reaction liberating calories resulting in hot gas. It's bright line spectral lines are faint and usually shifted to the far right, although there are rare ironic forms that show spectral lines in the center and even on the left. The element is surprisingly unevenly distributed over the earth's surface: being in higher concentrations in the southern U.S., far northwestern North America and with local but significant concentrations in Italy and the Middle-east. Unlike other heavy metals such as Hg, which can only be removed from the system with great difficulty, Stu is readily eliminated from the body through education which then often results in a change in milieu and lifelong immunity from contamination.
Bravo! Mothra! Bravo!
Matt Penfold #15 wrote:
I agree -- but this is where strategy comes in. Short-term strategy.
Luke Templer #29 wrote:
Yes. But I see a long-term problem lurking here.
In the Dover trial, Judge Jones cited the legal definition of the supernatural. The courts had defined "supernatural intervention" as intervention "that cannot be explained by natural causes, or can be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable." The trend in the legal -- and scientific -- communities is to use the Gould-like concept of science and religion being Non-Overlapping Magisterium. Science cannot say anything, one way or the other, about God.
Thus, Creationism is forbidden because it involves God coming into science, and you can't do that. You can't do that because of the separation of church and state, and you can't do that because the supernatural is "outside of science." No evidence could count either for or against the existence of God, or the truth of any religion.
Except that we know that's not true. And the average person knows that's not true. Miracles and the paranormal -- if proven to a high enough level of certainty -- could be accepted by science. If all our evidence pointed towards a 6,000 year old earth and species with no similarities, this would support and advance Genesis as a science theory. There is no artificial line on what science can, and can't, investigate. The 'politically correct' definition of supernatural as "outside of objective verification' doesn't track with how the concept is thought about, believed, or used in the real world.
And I think that, sooner or later, the shit is going to hit the fan here. Matt's right: creationism doesn't belong in science class because it's wrong. And Dawkins and PZ are right also: science does have something to say about the truth of religion and the existence of the supernatural. It looks like religious claims are not true and the supernatural doesn't exist. They're not in some special designated area where statements can look and sound and act and be used just like empirical claims, but need to be treated epistemically as if they were statements of meaning or value.
Authorities are trying to do a little dance to have it both ways: religion gets protected, but science is left alone. That only consistently works if NOMA is the correct description of religion. But, as others have pointed out, NOMA really describes humanism, not religion. You've got your claims about the natural world on one side, and you've got man-made ethics on how we ought to behave in this world on the other. Religion posits a natural world infused with moral meaning throughout, revealed, not through nature, but by God and revelation.
The separation of church and state, and separation of God and science, legal strategies may not be able to work longterm. They're expedient -- but I think they don't address the deeper issues.
I'll second Janine, very good explanation of elemental stupid Mothra.
Perhaps Mr. Fanti thinks that slowness of evolution would reveal the inner workings like the way a highspeed camera allows us to see things we cannot normally see in real time. This inability to conceptualize is shared with global warming deniers as well: "If the Earth is getting hotter how come it still gets really cold?"
America: Land of Opportunity Idiots.
James F #73 wrote:
Someone else asked this question, and the example that immediately came to my mind was Deepak Chopra. Of course, this is not Young Earth Creationism -- and Chopra is not a political figure. But he's been making a lot of noise, and he's popular with "liberals."
His arguments against evolution -- and in favor of a form of Intelligent Design -- are representative of the Spiritual Left's hatred of "reductive atheistic materialism," a dislike they share with the Christians and Muslims on the Right. They're all for infusing magic and enchantment back into science, which apparently went wrong in the 17th century -- when it no longer took souls, spirit, vitalism, and mystical revelation seriously in constructing a model of reality.
That's an easy one- they both make a living by bashing it. ;)
A lot of folks have heard of the Dover case. There was a similar attempt on the Darby, Montana school that never got the publicity, mostly because it got stopped before it got to court.
The creationists have been deliberately packing school boards for years now. They have an agenda to get folks elected that will accept their nonsense, and it is working, quite quietly. To stop them, you must get involved in your local school board, its elections, and the candidates for election. Run for your local school board yourself, or put up a candidate who will not allow creationism to be taught. Get out and vote, get out and get elected.
Its pretty obvious that stupid is dark matter, which is why its almost totally impervious to the rest of reality. Now, what that would mean from the perspective of examining areas of the universe that have been swallowed up by dark matter, or the likely outcome for the rest of the universe, given how little "normal" reality there is by comparison...
teach science in science class with some reference to history of understanding of nature but leave religion out entirely. My first real science class was biology in a catholic high school what I remember was the stress on the scientific method and a survey of life. We studied also in separate classes world history or U.S. history and a class in church history and seemed to have time for everything we needed to study. If "creationism" (a belief) is to be taught it should be in some kind of a some kind of comparative religion or religious history class instead. Religion and the practice of religion are historical facts and will not go away no matter how we might wish otherwise. No one can deny the influence on history of religion from prehistory forward to today. That is not what the religious activists want. They do not want anything other than their personal belief taught. In a world growing closer and "smaller" with religious warfare going on across the globe, with instantaneous communication across the world and international trade in just about all things it would be foolish not to teach our children about the world as we find it. To not understand the people and cultural practices and beliefs that inform their behavior would be to limit the future.
It is time to add more to education. we need to advocate some depth in understanding be taught, history is not going to go backwards to a time in the 19th century when we could be isolated from the rest of the world. Take the bull by the horns and push for more not just limit the attacks of the fundies. Use the energy of the opponent against him to our and the futures benefit! Teach it ALL! More education NOW!
PZ,
Thanks for the link and all the traffic today.
What I hope you'll understand is this: The scientific community should gleefully volunteer to teach Creationism. Immediately, if not sooner.
That would eliminate the "debate" faster than the current pointless series of arguments.
Stop fighting it. Give in. Teach it. The scientific community could eliminate more (theological) ignorance and do more to advocate critical thinking in one hour per year than they could by using any other methodology.
Which had you rather be? 100% right/correct? Or about 95% effective in passing your beliefs to the next generation?
Once again, thanks for the link and the traffic.
Allen in Fort Worth, TX
Luke Templer (#29):
Thanks. Makes sense to me now. I guess it depends on the "currency" of the creation myth used. (Is is still believed now?) And as suggested above, there probably *are* better examples for scientific (roughly, maximally evidence-based and logically coherent) arguments, and their opposites.
Since I grew up in a country with no formal division of church and state, the problem didn't really present itself in this way. I don't remember that we had any non-biological examples or topics in bio-class (short discussions of bioethics and then-current topics aside), and in the philosophy/ethics course I took in place of religious classes, we went (among much other writings) over parts of Genesis and the rest of the Bible, and the teacher (who also taught the protestant religion course) pointed out the discrepancies and problems. Thinking about it, I should have asked him how he dealt with it in the other class.
Anyways, thank you.
The Whited Sepulchre, one should not teach creationism in biology for the same reasons one does not teach alchemy in chemistry.
Thanks for the reminder, I've just (re)voted. BTW, whassup with the fact that there's a category for Religious Blog but none for Skeptical Blog? Plus which, why is it that Susie Bright is in the LGBT Blog category? To be sure, Susie speaks to that constituency, but her remit is actually much broader. She can't compete with blogs strictly dedicated to LGBT issues, but she'd be far more fairly evaluated in a category like Sex Blogs or Sex and Culture Blogs. Jus' sayin'....
As for the "creationists on the left" question, there are plenty of religious folk on the left, along with plenty who believe in nontraditional religions and New Age woo. No doubt some of them believe in some version of creationism... but I've never heard of any organized effort on the left to push creationism (or any other religious dogma) into the public schools.
That's instructive of a larger difference between left and right: Notwithstanding the rantings of right-wing blowhards, the left is not so much about promoting a monolithic set of dogma. It's not just that right and left believe in different things; it's that they think in different ways about what they believe in.
PS: As one of my New Year's resolutions, I'm attempting to revive my worthless and long-dormant personal blog. I'd hate to talk it up to any degree, but if I thought anyone was actually reading, I might be a bit more disciplined about posting. ;^)
Janine, I wouldn't teach all the principals of alchemy in a modern introductory chemistry class, but I would mention it in the historical section. The alchemists isolated a few elements and should be recognized for their work.
Creationism has nothing to do with biology though. Just a religious idea trying to pretend it has any validity in the modern world, in spite of all the evidence against it.
Does anyone know if there has ever been an attempt to bring two people from the extremes of both sides together in a social experiment?
I would like to see a well educated student of the sciences, and a fundamentalist promise to go to their institutions of learning (I use that term loosely for the fundy of course) and spend a decent amount of time seriously learning the opposing point of view?
I might be deluded, but I think if I had Fanti for an hour a day for 3 months, I think I could convince him of the ancient age of the earth, and the inevitability of evolution to describe the diversity of species.
Even the best known fundies (Comfort, Ham, etc) make serious, and obvious errors when describing evolution.
Of course, the fall of rational thinkers into deluded fantasy flys in the face of the 'education as cure' for fundamentalism. I wonder if fundamentalism is a brain condition, as opposed to a moral philosophy.
Nerd, would you accept;
One does not teach creationism in biology for the same reasons one does not teach holocaust denial in a class about World War II.
I like that. About the same logic/faith/lack of evidence in both cases.
#5
Someone already mentioned that the seats on a board of eduction are "low hanging fruit" for people starting out in politics (Jimmy Carter started out on a Public Library's Board, for example). When I was in college a 20 year old classmate ran a successful campaign for a seat on his hometown's board of education (in part inspired by a Political Science Professor who explained how to do it in class and who exhorted someone to try out his methods). My own unverifiable opinionated response is that the contempt for education in general and public eduction in particular makes these elections yawners with hardly anyone voting or taking interest in them.
#18
YES, YES, YES. (Please pardon my shouting). I have suggested this on other forums related to academic integrity (i.e.: when a school board overturned failing grades for football players caught cheating). There exists little coordination in terms of standards nor investigation into the "reputation" of a given school on the higher education end of the continuum. There should be.
Sastra # 79
Excellent post. You should get the Molly for January for that one. 'Nuff said.
# 82
There exists a cyclical resurgence of neo-platonist thinking that keeps recurring through history. We're seeing it now in the "New Age movement" and some poorly done offshoots of post-modernism. I would attribute it to an emotional need for a belief in some sort of plan or purpose to our existence. The Dancing Woo Li Masters and The Tao of Physics are the two main representative works of the brand of woo Deepak Chopra is slinging these days. I remember in the 80s my lefty, liberal friends excitedly waxing poetic about these books as indications that modern physics had somehow "merged" with Easter Philosophy. Sigh.
If I might make a suggestion, Dr. Myers:
I think what is really needed is to have people on the scene, with the necessary resources to directly rebut the creationists, and hold their arguments up to much-needed scorn and derision. I envision something like the following ...
* * * * *
John & Jane Doe, ordinary local citizens who want to fight against ignorance, attend their local school board hearing. They're armed with information off the web, perhaps organized as index cards with the standard creationism talking points. They've taken care to sign up for five minutes during the public response time. Ideally, they can get their bit in shortly after a creationist gives them some ammo.
Mr. Fanti or another of his ilk stands up and spouts his screed:
"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?"
That's really two creationist talking points, and one of the Does pulls out the appropriate cards and refreshes from them while the other is making sure to get Mr. Fanti's quote accurately.
When the time comes, the Does approach the podium and start to speak.
"I'd like to address Mr. Fanti's comments regarding the teaching of creationism in the science classroom, as an valid alternative scientific theory to evolution. Mr. Fanti stated: 'I wasn't here 2 million years ago,' implying that since he didn't personally witness it, that evolution can't possibly be scientifically valid."
"In the same vein, I suggest we also teach the alternate theory in literature that Plato wrote Shakespeare's plays. After all, I wasn't alive in either alledged person's alledged lifetime, so obviously any supposed 'evidence' supporting the generally accepted theory of authorship currently taught is invalid."
"In fact ..."
(Now that the Does have pointed out the absurdity of Mr. Fanti's statement, they continue with the true science, cribbed from their index cards, with web links, such as:
http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/index.html
that get read into the offical meeting record.)
The Does continue:
"Mr. Fanti also stated, 'If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?'"
(The Does play a sound effect into the microphone, of a phonograph needle being scratched across a record.)
"Say, WHAT?!? If it's so slow, why don't we see it happening??? That's like saying, 'If grass grows so slowly, why don't I see it growing?' Anyone here up for watching paint dry? (look around incredulously)."
"In truth, slow processes, like continental drift, were postulated long before we had any method to directly measure them. Since the advent of laser range-finding, satellites, and powerful computers, we have been able to directly measure the rate of continental drift. Doing so provided evidence that supported the hypothesis, and helped move continental drift to the status of a scientific theory, called plate tectonics."
"And that's the difference between how scientists use the word 'theory' and how non-scientists use it. To a scientist, a hypothesis only becomes a 'theory' AFTER the evidence comes in confirming it."
"Plate tectonics itself reinforces evolutionary theory by tying together the sedimentary layers in different continents and demonstrating how similar animals in what are now widely separated places could have evolved from a common ancestor."
The Does continue to demolish other creationist arguments, then wrap up with a reiteration that _none_ of the creationism claims stand up to close scrutiny.
* * * * *
The keys, in my opinion, are several.
1. There must be participation at the grassroots level - local people who can commit to attending local, county, state school board meetings where science standards, evolution and creationism are discussed.
2. The rebuttal has to be done immediately - in the same meeting - before the school board members have a chance to go home thinking the creationist made valid points.
3. The people fighting for rationality need to be prepared with answers to the common creationist talking points, with data and more information to back them up. They need to work in teams, so that one can concentrate on accurately recording the creationist's claims, while another compiles their replies.
4. The answers need to start with a 'hook' - a comparison or analogy that exposes the logical fallacy at the heart of the creationist's claim, and that does so in an easily remembered manner. Sound effects are very useful for that.
5. The answer needs to be followed up immediately with solid facts and an explanation of the _real_ science - from as many disciplines as possible, not just biology - that back it up. The deeper answer needs to be written in a manner that ignorant (but not necessarily stupid) people can understand, with references for further study.
I'm sorry if I rambled a bit. I hope this provides others with more knowledge than I some ideas to work from. The fight against ignorance and irrationality is important.
Sastra wrote: The separation of church and state, and separation of God and science, legal strategies may not be able to work longterm. They're expedient -- but I think they don't address the deeper issues.
The problem is, once creationism worms its way into a science class there is no recourse other than a legal one. This may be a short term solution, all legal issues are only binding until a case comes along that reverses the outcome, but what else is there? Until creationists give up trying to get it into schools, courts are the only solution. The same is true for all church-state issues, Ten Commandment monuments, for instance. As long as religion is around, courts are the only defense against being overrun by the godly.
Sastra's already got one.
No, no, no - that was by William Melville. Herman Shakespeare wrote Richard The White Whale and Much Ado About Typee .
Here is what I don't get about the "no proof" fallacy. Even if there were no proof in support of Evolution, it would still be a more valid scientific theory than creationism, and certainly Abrahamian Creationism, which is demonstrably false. Q.E.D.
Are you sure that's not Richard the Dick and Moby and Cressida?
Bart Mitchell #92
We have creationists/IDers come here all the time. They try to tell us about the truth of their position and we try to refute their beliefs and teach them about evolution. Unfortunately, both sides have completely different mindsets:
* Both groups are convinced their position is correct and the other position is not only false but demonstrably false.
* Both groups are starting from different stances. Creationists/IDers begin with the conclusion and find evidence to support it. Evolutionists (damn, I hate that word) look at the evidence and draw conclusions from it.
* There are other philosophical differences which cloud the arguments. Creationists/IDers are generally religious and their basic conclusion is religious. Evolutionists see no need for religion to be considered part of the argument. Plus most creationists/IDersers are fundamentalists who firmly believe that evolution is [i]prima facie[/i] atheistic. The point that many of us are atheists just proves to them the correctness of this viewpoint.
There are discussions between evolutionists and creationist/IDers all the time. The discussions generate a great deal of heat but very little light.
Sastra deserves a Tentacle Cluster or two. Her summations of the arguments in a given thread are always very well thought out, and clearly expressed. I see a Sastra post and mouse wanders over and clicks on it every time.
Steve S @96
A good idea, even though
You left part out, I hope you know--
For one, it takes a bit of time
And preparation (just like rhyme);
A meeting may have limits set
For how much time the speakers get.
(They may or may not count the shouts
By organized Creation louts)
And Joe and Jane, as well as cards,
May wish to think of bodyguards--
At least someone to watch and catch
If hoodlums try to egg or scratch
Their car while they are speaking there.
But if they take sufficient care
And have a decent audience
They might knock someone off the fence;
It's much more easy said than done,
But if somebody thinks it's fun
Then go for it--I'd hope to see
That I am wrong (but that's just me.)
Waste of time. There aren't enough index cards to cover every damn dumb thing a creationist could spout off. Choose good talking points and hit those talking points. Mention how all the major scientific organizations reject creationism and have statements supporting evolution (Name them, quote the statements). Bring up the legal liability and lawyers fees they'll have to pay to defend such a decision. Ask them if they've consulted lawyers on the subject, or if they're willing to risk 6 figures worth of the taxpayer's money like Dover did.
The NCSE has some good resources on getting in front of a school board.
You're just setting yourself up for quotemining now.
Didn't Mal say Fanty is the "prettier" one?
Sastra has it quite right. Historically the battle between science and religion was an uphill battle for science because religion controlled the social and political structure. Copernicus, Brahe/Kepler, and Galileo are perfect examples of scientific observations that were "inconvenient" for religion at the time. Over the intervening centuries, religion has lost much of its hold on the control over government, but remains a strong social power. In that same time science, where it didn't specifically challenge religion, was allowed to grow until the point where, no matter what the field, it began to again bring into question fundamental literal religion.
Today "Darwinism" is the focal point, but really just about every major scientific field at least questions a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Geology: World isn't 6,000 years old, no evidence for a global flood.
Astronomy: Again, the world isn't 6,000 years old, universe isn't 6,000 years old.
Paleontology: Roughly 99% of all animal species that ever lived are extinct ... divine creation seriously f'd up.
Biology, Anatomy, Genetics, Anthropology: All show that we aren't specially created, but instead are the product of adaptive mechanisms and compromises.
History: Pyramids, well documented in age, show no sign of ever having been under water. Same can be said of Stonehenge, the Indus River Civilization, Caral, etc.
Psychology/Psychiatry: "Demons" and "possession" are actually chemical imbalances in the brain.
An unbiased look at the evidence provided by all of the sciences, both "hard" and "soft" lead to the same conclusions. A Biblical or Abrahamic explanation of the world around us is a fairy tale similar to Zeus, Thor, or any other mythology that we have dismissed as fantasy.
The government's current position is to take a middle-ground approach. There are a variety of reasons, in some cases it is due to judges following the guidelines of the Constitution and not pushing the secular government into the sectarian sphere. Other cases involve more than a bit of cynical manipulation, IE the Republican party using "critical" wedge issues to get the religious right frothing and, of importance to them, voting. Finally I think you have judges who share the beliefs of the religious, at least to some degree, but again (correctly) see the constitution as barring the religious from the secular.
Why Bill Dauphin, you sly dawg.
I just hopped over to your blog and saw your picture. You're a hottie!
I think I got stupider just reading that sentence.
And here's what I want to know about the "teach the controversy" crowd: Why do they always want to teach the controversy in science class?
By all means, teach the controversy. But teach it in history or social studies class. It's a fascinating and important controversy in our history and our society, and people should be aware of it. But it is not a controversy in science. In science, it's about as settled as a question can get.
Bill Dauphin #90 wrote:
If you want to see how the "Spiritual Left" tries to strongarm its religious views into science and education, take a look at So-Called Alternative Medicine and the inroads it's making into "Quackademic Medicine." Major medical schools are now beginning to teach pseudosciences like homeopathy and reiki, quasi religious/spiritual beliefs about reality which rest on scientifically discredited concepts of vitalism and mind/body/spirit connections. Politics, money, popularity, and ideology are coming together against science-based medicine -- the same forces which line up against science-based evolution, if not the same group.
The right and left are adopting the same tactics when they promote their favored brand of pseudoscience: they talk about "choice" and the people's "right to hear both sides and make up their own mind." They argue that we need to respect beliefs that are "deeply-held." Both sides sneer at what they consider to be a "narrow scientism," which leaves out the spiritual and godly truths that are known through Other Ways of Knowing, such as personal experience, intuition, the ancient traditions of indigenous cultures, and faith.
I suspect that the only reason what can be loosely called the Spiritual Left is against creationism in the schools is that this isn't their brand of magic, and they don't like the Religious Right. Look what happens when they're convinced that Alternative Medicine really works. Suddenly, the scientific consensus is viewed as a close-minded hegemony, if not a conspiracy of evil.
The more their spiritual form of science gets taught as fact, the more they cheer. Like the creationists, they have their own journals and their own scientists. Unlike the creationists, however, they're taken seriously and being allowed into legitimate forums and secular public institutions.
In their own way, the Spiritual Left is just as hostile to scientific thinking as the Religious Right. They claim to love science, but attack it in the same of tolerance. People should be allowed to choose what they want to believe. Science is wonderful, they say -- but, as currently practiced, too negative and limited, too focused on the objective. They want a holistic science, which, they reasonably argue, should include all of reality. No separation of science and spirit.
Since there is spirit, it makes sense to include it.
Their claims are specific enough to be testable. And, like Flood Geology, they're wrong.
Nerd of Redhead #103 wrote:
Awww... you guys are all so sweet. But nothing is going to beat PZ making me a "Pharyngulord" last summer, when I got to guest blog.
That's ... like... being... a ... god.
Is this a blast from the past? I thought the last time this guy got his panties in a knot about Cdesign, the board didn't tell him to STFU, but he essentially got stony silence and a "Let's move on" from the board.
Creationists believe in Super Evolution!
Having just watched Religulous I think that the human race is pretty much screwed. There are so many of these nutcases, and they are so convinced that their beliefs are true, and so many of them are in places of power (particularly in the US) that we are going to become the "collateral damage" of the modern age. I'd like to be more optimistic, but when so many of them are expecting "the rapture" and the "end of days", what's a few nuclear bombs among friends. It just gets Jesus here a little faster. Crazy people scare me. If you want more proof about just how many of these psychos there are, and what kind of influence they have, then check this out: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525
Those of us who live in the "reality based community" are not likely to be able to curb the insanity. Too many nutcases. Sometimes I wish I didn't have children. I dread what they will experience in their lifetimes.
I think you could 'teach the contoversy' in biology, on the first day of class when you are explaining what the goals of the class are. You could say something like, "This is Biological Diversity 325 and we will give an overview of life on the modern earth, as well as a brief history of life as seen in the fossil record. We will not discuss the origin of life at any length because nobody was alive then to see it and the only evidence we have is either indirect or hypothetical. Some scientists think that there was a period in the earth's history known as "RNA world" and that RNA was the first living thing (write the qualifications for living entities on the board). In fact, small strands of RNA have been shown to be self-replicating in a lab and I would be happy to give you references and talk to you about my perspective of the origin of life during office hours. From here on out, we will assume that life began billions of years ago and hopefully by the end of the semester you will have a clear idea of how living things on the earth became so wonderfully diverse"
You could do the same type of thing with alchemy in chemistry, astrology in astronomy, and physics in physics
Unfortunately I see a future where Creationism does have equality to actual FACTS in the classroom because Fundamentalists are, as is present in the middle of that word, MENTAL, and will stop at nothing to see their dogma forced upon people.
Yes, but you weren't here 200 years ago, either. And you believe you had male and female ancestors back then?
Why do you think that you didn't actually have male and female ancestors (none of which looked like present humans)2 million years ago? Does magic suddenly become plausible back far enough in time?
There are, unsurprisingly, any number of sources of the creationist errors. One actually is that people have trouble understanding past time, especially deep time, and they lose their sense of causal forces acting during deep time. Not an excuse, not at all, but the problems with actually understanding continuity of processes over millions of years is one of the psychological factors that bolsters the forceful nonsense of creationism.
As for his "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?": I think it's based on a lack of understanding of how slow it really is, as well as his lack of understanding that no trend may be observable, that is, that near-stasis is not infrequent. He may be saying that it has to be observable at any time, without his knowing what to look for.
Regardless, he's one insufferable ignoramus, and it's frightening that not just he, but many others like him, are in charge of children's education.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
"I'd like to see the kiddies learning that the Bible is incoherent trash in Sunday School."
I'm doing my best to help out with that last request of yours. I can’t do it in Sunday School, but I can sure do it on my website. I am just finishing up Genesis, and after 42 chapters I have found two tall tales and a number of golden verses on YHWH’s forgetfulness! Not to mention how naive he is.
Teach 'the controversy' in a history of religions class but NOT in a science class. Recommended texts: Huston Smith, The World's Religions and Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained.
Approaching the 'controversy' this way: Huston Smith in The World's religions calls religions the world's wisdom traditions and specifies 5 functions that religions serve (paraphrased badly, I do not have the book at my fingertips. 1) Structure for society- certainty in everyday life, 2) framework for Laws- security, 3) Through tradition, a communal memory for wisdom, 4) Explanation of humans' place in nature, 5) Explanation of why the world is the way it is.
The last two are immediately rendered obsolete by science. The first three are subject to scientific investigation.
With this framework as a backdrop it is possible to make a case for a modified NOMA- belief in a deity and it's 'covenants' with the stipulation that religions make no clam on the physical world- the realm of science. Since cognitive dissonance is already part of the religious mind-set, bring it out as a 'feature.'
I would like to see a different 'controversy' addressed in churches. Have non-theists talk to Sunday school classes and explain what non-theism actually is.
Yay! Pharyngula is back. Oh, Happy Monkey!
At #19, 'Tis Hisself wrote:
Yeah, so??
You never see Staph give birth to a whale or a dog, do ya?
A common mistake among neophyte readers and biologists. Moby Dick was written by William Melville and Herman Shakespeare*. A similar misapprehension is that Huckleberry Finn wasn't written by Mark Twain but by another author with the same name.
*A little known fact is that Shakespeare was Fyodor Dostoevsky's twin brother. The sordid story of their separation is told in Dostoevsky's novel Don Quixote.
Comment 34 by rrt (I'm sorry I'm a bit behind the flow of posts here):-
To be "fair" to Mr. Fanti, I think that idiotic statement makes perfect sense to him. I suspect what he meant was the crocoduck version of evolution. Since we don't see any (ridiculous) hybrid transitional forms today, evolution must not be going on now. And we ought to see them since evolution is so slow--in other words, species ought to spend a lot more time in crocoduck phase.
Thank you so much rrt. I now finally understand what they mean in their punny little minds when they say "if evolution is so slow why don't we see it now". It is amazing isn't it the weird ideas these people have about what evolution actually is. I have been puzzling over this for a while, thinking what can this statement possibly mean? I mean it is so obvious to me that if a process is slow then it is going to be harder to see it in action over a short time period (say like the course of a life-time) not easier. It amazes me that anybody can be so logically deficient as to not see this!
@#123--
What, does the platypus not count?
"I mean it is so obvious to me that if a process is slow then it is going to be harder to see it in action over a short time period (say like the course of a life-time) not easier."
He doesn't want to see.
Patricia (@109):
Aww, now you're just mocking me! Besides, it's an old picture (taken during my daughter's Make-a-Wish trip to Hawaii, a more than 6 years ago).
Sastra (@111):
I probably overstated my case. I really meant only to be saying I haven't seen any evidence that people on the left are trying to ram religious indoctrination into the public schools (by which I mean grade schools, not post-secondary institutions).
It's wrong to teach mystical bullshit as fact in any case (and esp. on the public's dime), of course, but I worry a lot more about the indoctrination of relatively defenseless children than about young adults who, if we're careful about keeping their early education rational and woo-free, can hopefully defend themselves intellectually against fallacious ideas.
Yeah, but the difference is when most lefties talk about "choice," they actually mean it; right wingers usually mean they're defending the right of everyone to have the choice to agree with the one Truth in the face of all those lefty ideas that are clearly contrary to God's will. Despite the superficial similarities, I see a difference in the deep structure.
Unfortunately, the commitment of many lefties (BTW, I don't mean that as an insult: I proudly consider myself a lefty) to respecting all views creates a false equivalency between rational, well-tested ideas and all manner of crazy weirdness... but that's different from (and IMHO preferable to) the monolithic orthodoxy of ignorance promoted by the right.
It's harder to herd cats than cattle, but by the same token a cat stampede does far less harm.
Re: Cuttlefish, #104
When the Does decided to flout,
An ignorant creationist lout,
They presented enough data,
information and errata,
That the schoolboard was left with no doubt.
I don't think everyone is going to agree that the bible is incoherent trash. It doesn't sound to me like you make a regular study of this world renowned best seller? It sounds as though you have an axe to grind. Which is fair enough, good marketing strategy for your blog. I wonder how the bible has annoyed you? To me it is a book sitting on a shelf. Oscar Wilde said books can be neither moral nor immoral, just well written...or possibly incoherent trash? Still, for the latter, the bible has impressive sales figures. And then some people take it literally (poor souls) and endeavour to base their Life decisions upon what they interpret as God's teachings...Two religions are founded upon its contents. Are you suggesting such a huge world audience are deluded? Or could there be more within than meets your approval?
Canuck (in 115) worries about the world our kids will have.
I share that but think that the worries haven't really changed in the last fifty years; just the actors. The technocratic fanatics like Edward Teller were just as scary (and fantasized apocalypse) as much as the Rapture Ready(tm) people now.
Last night the family watched "Koyannisquatsi"; at the time (1983) it still looked like armageddon was going to come from our technological hubris.
[In the end credits, the filmmaker gave a shout out to several thinkers, at least two of which (Jacques Ellul and Ivan Illich) were leftist Christians].
The cold war was between an officially atheist state apparatus and one run by capitalists with no specific religious axe to grind (Reagan, after all, never went to church; Kennedy was privately a nonbeliever, Carter a religious liberal, and Johnson not esp. religious). It was really touch and go for the human race for a while.
A few minor things have improved:
I had an engineering prof. back in the 70's who was convinced that pollution was actually good for us (based on some study he'd read somewhere). At least that kind of idiocy is out of fashion, and the craziest Alternative Therapies out there have a long way to go to reach Christian Science, and, except for Scientology, don't seem as destructive as those 70s favorites: Macrobiotic Diets and Type A Personality Causes Cancer. I'm probably forgetting about something though.
llewelly #99
Emmet Caulfield, OM #101
"Can you help me with David Coperfield?"
"Ah, yes, Dickens."
"No...."
"I beg your pardon?"
"No, Edmund Wells."
"I...think you'll find Charles Dickens wrote David Copperfield, sir...."
"No, no, Dickens wrote David Copperfield with two Ps. This is David Coperfield with one P by Edmund Wells."
"David Coperfield with one P?"
"Yes, I should have said."
"Yes, well in that case we don't have it."
"if evolution is so slow why don't we see it now".
I think another factor, besides Glen D's excellent mention of deep time tomfoolery, is that scientists have actually gotten the change over time into people's brains. It's good that the message has gotten through. The problem is, of course, that these people think that it means every species will keep changing and changing. and changing But it doesn't have to. If a species has become perfectly suited for its niche, and if the niche does not change, the same genes that were ideal will be the ones that continue to carry forth. If you're the best for that niche, why change?
Hence why sharks haven't changed all that much. Or crocodiles. It's not that their genes have stopped passing on, it's that the genes from x numbers of years ago for dealing with an environment are still the genes best suited for their environment (at the moment). They were the genes that kept getting passed on.
Or that's how I understand it.
" Herman Shakespeare wrote Richard The White Whale and Much Ado About Typee.
Are you sure that's not Richard the Dick and Moby and Cressida?"
Don't forget Billy Andronicus.
@#128
Zowoco- actually I agree with you. The bible is only incoherent trash if taken too seriously. If it is deemed as just a story, that is sometimes interesting, slightly weird and occasionally (and ONLY occasionally) offering half-decent moral incite then there really isn't much wrong with it at all. If the Bible was deemed as this by everybody then there would be no more reason to call it "trash" than there would "The Lord of the Rings". The trouble is there are many, many people who think the Bible is literally true, whilst people who think that there is an Uruk-hai hiding round the corner ready to chop their head off are few and far between!!!
The Creationist game plan has been obvious for nearly 10 years...when things got sticky they tried re-branding themselves ID...why...because the game plan is still ticking...ID if it worked would have got them in the secular back door...but it was a pig in lipstick...they have returned to original branding!
The only target they have at the moment is to eradicate evolution...that is the bottom line...it always has been...to do that they have to get into science lessons to cast doubt on it...to do that they need to get creationism into schools...but not Religious lessons...that is no good to them...they want science lessons...they will not stop till they get it!
Only then can they kill the one thing above all that will eventually kill them...Evolution!
It is to be hoped that before they achieve that goal that Evolutionary theory becomes unassailable in every aspect...it is the best explanation at the moment...and is as good as it gets evidence wise...but it needs a PR offensive the like of which will carry that message to every citizen ...
That is the challenge...if that fails the US will return to the dark ages in 10-15 years....tis a race...and they are edging it!
The Whited Sepulchre said, "The scientific community should gleefully volunteer to teach Creationism."
Yes, yes and yes! The creationists have gone too far, unwittingly. They've softened the language in their requirements to the point that any teacher could stand up in class and explain exactly what is wrong with creationism, the bible and religion in general. Not just explain, but denounce, curse and compare to hammered dogshit. And the creationists can't stop him! They are hoisted with their own petard.
But few in the science, evolution and atheist areas seem to realize that the line has been crossed. Thanks to Whited Sepulchre for pointing it out. Pass the word, and prepare the admonition.
I'm glad The Royal Spawn is out of school. Creationism and other such nonsense was not taught where we live. Good. We gave him an areligious home, so he has learned to view everything tossed at him with a skeptical eye. No sky fairies in our house!
Political Corrections:
arggh, forgot about Nixon. My unconscious again. He grew up Quaker but ended up with Billy Graham, I guess. I never think of him as religious, he just seemed too self-absorbed. But I guess his religion didn't do him any good. Reagan, whatever his private inclinations, publically paid lip service to the nutty religious right, so he goes on that side of the ledger. I also forgot about Clinton: religious liberal I guess.
If they believe that the poor mythology of Genesis is an accurate historical account then yes.
Board attorney Joseph Causey said it might be possible for the board to add creationism to the curriculum if it doesn't replace the teaching of evolution.
Why do school boards only hire idiot lawyers? The teaching of creationism violates the establishment clause regardless of whether or not the school teaches evolution.
Slightly OT:
Have a great poll to pharyngulate at stuff.co.nz
"Should students be allowed to opt out of religious activities at school?"
Yes is winning already, but it's sad to see the more than 2000 no votes.
Have at 'em!
Suggesting? That's a rather soft word for coming out and saying it directly over and over and over.
North Carolina is reputed to be a fairly sophisticated State with their research triangle, etc. So its puzzling to see them fall in line with Mississippi in this evolution book-bashing. I don't know about N.C. but if you go to Mississippi and tell those people, whose lives are governed by their Bible and their Personal Savior, that you've got some fruit fly that's transpeciating into a bald eagle and they are going to put you in one of their hideous mental institutions.
They don't need some Northern twerp to come down here and try to sell them on Communism in the guise of evolution. They're not buying because they have nothing less then the fertile cerebrations of a Renaissance mind like Vox Day to put them in the know. Here's what Vox has to say about this putrid evolution business:
"Devious evolutionists have been quick to exploit this general ignorance in an attempt to distance Darwin and his theory of evolution from the crimes of the communist killers of the previous century. In doing so, they are following the dishonest lead of some of the more shameless atheists, such as Sam Harris, whose lies on behalf of his atheism stand in more blatant contrast to the historical record than those of any Holocaust denier. Like Lady MacBeth, these atheists and evolutionists frantically attempt to scrub and scrub away at the historical record, desperate to wash the blood of tens of millions off the hands of their stained ideologies
"I am content to demonstrate that Darwinism was, and is, a core element of Marxist ideology."
"Darwin is second only to Hegel in terms of his importance to basic Marxist theory and some post-Marxists even considered him to be more important."
So, they say, you might be able to sell this evolution/communist crap up in Minnesota but its not going to float in Mississippi and apparently not in N.C. either.
Now I want to note that I don't particularly share these reactionary views. However, in a democratic society these folks have a right to believe whatever they damn well please.
Why do you keep quoting Vox for? It impresses nobody.Interesting sidenote, I went to an exhibition on Darwin yesterday and one of the information panels had a note about "social Darwinism". In time everything from marxism to unbridled capitalism, from eugenics to ethnic cleansing has been put under the phrase social Darwinism. The poor guy just can't help but have his name associated with societies ills - but it's always a different ill depending on the context.
They are allowed their beliefs, but they can't misrepresent them. If their beliefs are religious, they must be labelled religious. If creationism is pretending to be science, that is a bald faced lie, because there is no creationism theory in the primary scientific literature. That makes the creationist claim a misrepresentation. And creationism well never be scientific, because god cannot be an explanation for any observation. It isn't up for vote. Since creationism is science, it should not be taught in science class.
I don't think everyone is going to agree that the bible is incoherent trash.
Points just sail over your pointy head, don't they? The point is that religious freaks are trying to force people to learn lies about science. I'm keeping it simple here, because you don't seem to catch complex ideas.
And 50,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong, right? Sorry. It doesn't matter how many people believe something or buy something. That doesn't make it true or good.
And just because you think someone hasn't read something doesn't mean you're right. Given how much you've gotten wrong already, I think you'd better back off making any kind of claim to truth.
It sounds like you are full of shit, and it sounds like you have a bad case of projection. When you don't know why someone is saying something, don't open your mouth and prove how ignorant you are.
Marketing strategy? Good grief, how do you know that this is some kind of marketing strategy? How do you know it's not somebody just being an opinionated American exercise his free speech to speak his miind? Is he personally selling anything here? However, what you don't realize is how this is a very revealing statement about YOU
Still missing the point, I see. ONCE AGAIN: IT'S THAT RELIGIOUS MORONS ARE TRYING TO GET RELIGION TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASS. Get it now?
Most rational thing you've said. There may be hope for you. Even though you're still missing the fucking point.
50,000,000 ELVIS FANS CAN'T BE WRONG You're back to being irrational, and bringing up the old argument of numbers. It's bullshit. Here, I'll help. Go to this site and learn about logical fallacies. It might help. But it might not, given how immune to reason you are.
and endeavour to base their Life decisions upon what they interpret as God's teachings...Two religions are founded upon its contents. Are you suggesting such a huge world audience are deluded?
Well, if it isn't the Vox Day cheer squad. Are you sure you shouldn't posting your fan-masturbation on his site, Max? He'd love nothing more than knowing you're on your knees, ready to to receive his, er, wisdom.
Minds like Vox Day's are what caused the situation the Renaissance was required to remedy. No doubt he'd love nothing more than another anti-science, anti-freedom, theocratic dark age.
I guess yet another symptom of Vox's intellectual dishonesty is that he pretends he's never heard of Lysenko. Colour me unsurprised.
DOH, the last sentence in #144: Since creationism is not science,....
look up Lysenkoism, you ignorant fool, and then come back and explain to me how Stalin was a "Darwinist"
Argh. Major blockquote failure. Preview is my friend... Preview is my friend... If Reverend BDC is the KoT, can I be the Duchess of HTML failure?
Silver Fox quoting VD:"I am content to demonstrate that Darwinism was, and is, a core element of Marxist ideology."
"Darwin is second only to Hegel in terms of his importance to basic Marxist theory and some post-Marxists even considered him to be more important."
The Communist Manifesto first published in 1848.
The Origin of Species 1859.
Wait a minute... I had that first paragraph blockquoted. I looked right at it. I think this Typepad thing is screwy...
Seconding Nerd of Redhead (#144). Teaching creationism as science is fraud in any situation. In the case of American public school science classes, it's also a violation of the Establishment Clause.
By the by, I find it very telling that Vox Day's rant is completely devoid of references to scientific evidence.
Another interesting thing at the Darwin exhibition, it was talking about the praise of TOOS from Karl Marx, but it included Marx lamenting that the theory was derived from the work of Malthus. Though Vox Day is being intellectually dishonest by trying to put evolution and socialism in the same light. No matter what unfavourable movements it's associated with, it doesn't impede one bit on it's scientific validity. And until that is admitted, the links to Marx or Laissez-Faire capitalistic endeavours or eugenics, or whatever, it is a game of intellectual dishonesty where the attacks on evolution are nothing more than straw-men designed to attract an emotive rejection of one of the strongest theories that exist in science today.
and they call us relativists. fucking hell. science is not a democracy, scientific positions are not up for vote. what scientists personally believe is irrelevant, but scientific positions are decided by the Scientific Method, not by vote or opinion.
Even if this is true, so what? Marxists, with the possible exception of Pol Pot, accept the Germ Theory of Disease. Does this mean that we should toss that theory out because Soviet doctors vaccinated people and practiced asepsis?
Relativity gave us nuclear weapons. Does this mean we should pretend E does not equal mc² because someone thinks nuclear weapons are abhorent?
The "Marx used evolution as a basis of his works" objection is meaningless when considering the truth or falsity of evolution. Hitler liked Richard Wagner's operas. Should Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg or Der Ring des Nibelungen never be performed?
Kel, and you are surprised by this? after all, most theists, and certainly all creationists, are proponents of the Noble Lie, whether they know it or not. reality per-se is unimportant to them :-/
What's with Max Verret's hard-on for Vox Day?
'Tim Himself #155,
And Wernher von Braun was a Nazi. Rocket science = EVIL!!!1!!!ONE!
Birds of a disingenuous feather flock together?
hmmm...#156 came out too snarky against Kel, when my real frustration is with morons who think that being inundfated in comfy wishful-thinking is somehow better than knowing reality and dealing with it
Not surprised, just disappointed. It's sad to see the way smart humans can delude themselves into such points of intellectual dishonesty as to make such a pitiful plea as Vox Day is doing. It's even more pitiful to watch Max Verret parade these arguments as if they are profound and insightful instead of what they really are - straw man attacks.If Vox Day came out and said "the evidence is there for evolution, but the bible says otherwise and I believe that to be true" then maybe I could see some honesty. But short of saying Darwin raped babies, Vox Day seems to be trying to tie every social evil where there is even the slightest tenuous link that can be attributed to the theory of evolution is gross dishonesty. As 'Tis Himself pointed out, e=mc² doesn't suddenly become wrong because nuclear weapons were born out of the concept. Vox Day is a dishonest twat and Max Verret needs to have a semblance of his own thought.
Just to expand on that, we have people trying to claim emphatically that ID is not rebranded creationism and it's existence has nothing to do with religion. We have people trying to push religion into public schools under the guise of free speech (no matter the violation of church and state), there's the misuse of the word theory which seems to only apply in the case of evolution, there's the straw-man attacks as mentioned in my last post which exist purely to discredit scientific propositions, there's the call of academic freedom and trying to apply that on a school level.It's the whole Lying for JesusTM I'm opposed to, these people aren't idiots who are making these claims yet they commit logical fallacies, try to weasel their position into places it should not be, and in general do everything they possibly can in order to win the battle for God. It's this dishonesty that really frustrates me, and it's coming from a group who are meant to follow a commandment (it's a commandment, not a guide) that one should not bear false witness. They go after homosexuality with a passion, try to stop abortion, but when it comes to something that's actually in the commandment list then their sense of morality goes out the window.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
In short, I'm sick of people who claim they have the moral highground resort to the most immoral and amoral methods of achieving their goal. Fuck the hypocrites!
Posted by: Silver Fox | January 11, 2009
Now I want to note that I don't particularly share these reactionary views. However, in a democratic society these folks have a right to believe whatever they damn well please.
Fine. We also have the right to correct wrongs. And we also have the right to not have people with known falsehoods dictate have we are to educate children.
Silly old goat, did you see how easily the words of VD were show to be falsehoods? Why would we knowingly also such falsehoods to be passed on without a fight?
Bill Dauphin @126 - I was not mocking! You look so much younger than you 'sound'.
Gad, that's almost a backhanded compliment...
Another vox day lie. Stalin thought "Darwinism"* was incompatible with communism. He forced their biologists to renounce the theory. The ones that didn't were sent to Siberia. Some of those died there.
Irrelevant anyway. Scientific theories stand or fall based on facts, not the character of their authors or what use they are put to.
Vox Day is mentally ill. He was voted Most Likely the Next Mall Shooter. His father is a felon doing prison time. What is the point of quoting lunatic fringers.
*Darwinism doesn't exist. This is a made up term by ignorant fundies who have no idea what evolution or biology really are.
I'd like to see the kiddies learning that the Bible is incoherent trash in Sunday School.
Hehe, strangely enough, as a child, I actually sat down and read the Bible, then asked my Sunday School teachers about all the inconsistencies, contradictions and general wackiness in it, and found the answers either too vague or non-existant. So, in a way, I DID learn that the Bible was incoherent trash in Sunday School.
@Silver Fox
Damn it you're right! As the great Republican pundit Stephen Colbert has so clearly stated, the laws of physics are leaning liberal!
By all means, leave them to their devices. I'm far more worried about the brainwashing they're exposing their kids to. They have a right to say what they damn want, but what gives them the right to tell kids what to believe?
Aquaria - #149 - I dub thee Duchess of HTML Failure. Long may you rule HTML Failures with goodness and peace.
Oh goody! An excuse to go buy a new tiara and sash.
re #12 Posted by: Ouchimoo | January 11, 2009 10:50 AM
You may like this!
http://www.politics.co.uk/news//opinion-former-index/legal-and-constitu…
Time to go on the offensive.
Does anyone know if there is an organized effort to remove tax exempt status from religious institutions? If they're going to preach in our classrooms, I want their collection plates to help fund our public schools.
Patricia:
So maybe I sound like a crotchety old fart, but don't look like one? And this, by you, is "not mocking"? Oy!
;^)
@ #87
One big flaw in your plan (quite aside from religious fantasies not being science!) is that, frequently, it wouldn't really be scientists doing the teaching.
In many schools there are religious nutters masquerading as science teachers, eg Kathy Martin. So you'd be giving them a free pass to indoctrinate children with their religious lies.
At the moment at least there's a threat of sanctions against them for proselytising, even though it's a sadly underused and unenacted one. You'd be taking even that most feeble of threats away.
Not to say no-one on the left is involved in So-Called Alternative Medicine, but do keep in mind the strongest promoters of So-Called Alternative Medicine in congress were until recently (hopefully the new majorities will render them less able to promote their woo - but I doubt it) people like Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator James Inhofe, and Representative Ron Paul. That madness is a bi-partisan effort.
Alright Bill and Patricia! Do I need to separate the slutty from the crusty? sigh
"Are you suggesting such a huge world audience are deluded?"
Yep.
Um, you're seriously intending to equate 'supports Democrat Party' with 'being left-wing politically'? Good grief.
That's as misguided as equating 'librul' with left-wing. Sure, there are left-wing tending people in both classes but the Dem. party is pretty solidly right-wing by global standards. And a distressing fraction of people that would describe themselves as liberal are nothing more than woo-worshippers. I guess the problem must be that the repugincans have managed to tie up the entire panoply of right-wing-awfulness so everyone else gets herded into liberal-left by default. Sad.
Silver Fox @142 - "atheists and evolutionists frantically attempt to scrub and scrub away at the historical record, desperate to wash the blood of tens of millions off the hands of their stained ideologies."
Yes, let's take a look at some blood stained ideologies:
"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." (Mein Kampf) "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews...The work that Christ started but could not finish, I - Adolf Hitler - will conclude." (1926 Nazi Christmas celebration)
Is that the blood you were looking for?
When I rule the world, there will be two types of people eligible to serve on school boards: teachers and student advisors.
If this sounds anti-democratic, then screw you. Science is not a democracy.
@Sastra
"Science is wonderful, they say -- but, as currently practiced, too negative and limited, too focused on the objective. They want a holistic science, which, they reasonably argue, should include all of reality. No separation of science and spirit."
I have several friends who buy into that. Sometimes they are people who have a need to always feel like they have the inside info and that makes them special... Deepak is a friend or Weil treats my wife's cancer. It is a kind of celebrity worship and being an exclusive member of the club.
Or in the case of another friend, he and his wife are suspicious of science because it is cold and unemotional. He's convinced wifi has to be dangerous because it is emitting rays that must affect the body. I was able to convince them to vaccinate their children.
I have discussions with these people all the time and sometimes I'm able to get through to them, but as with any superstition or faith, reason is often seen as part of the problem. They want to believe in magic because the truth is just too harsh for them. How can the truth of existence not be based on love and emotion? Or at the very least be part of the reason? They cannot separate human experience from the whole of the universe.
They are good people who mean well, love their children and genuinely care for me.
I return the love by patiently engaging them whenever I can.
Janine - It's getting close... if he invites me to share a Walnetto, grab the bucket of cold water. ;o)
(note that I smoothly blame the crotchety old fart for my flattery)
First you need to ensure that the only people eligible to teach at all are the ones with genuine qualifications in the subject they supposedly teach (and at a significantly higher level than their students). So all high school teachers would need a degree in a real subject and not one of those fake degrees in B.Ed. or anything from a degree mill. Otherwise you simply end up with the same bunch of incompetents and religious nutters in charge of regulating themselves at teaching.
This makes my head hurt. And what's worse is that this is by no means an atypical American school board. Sigh.
I'm still working on getting over Janine's implicit suggestion that I might not also be slutty myself!
Alright Bill, which one is it? Are you a crusty slut or a slutty crust? Come on, I don't have time to waste.
"what gives them the right to tell kids what to believe?"
It would seem that they have the right because they are the children's parents. Parents have the PRIMARY right to educate educate their children. If they don't like what the schools are teaching their children, they can home school the kids and that is their right. The real question is: Where does one get the right to tell parents that their children are going to be taught contrary to the parents' values. You don't tell the child of a Jehovah Witness parent that it is stupid to refuse a blood transfusion. If you did, you wouldn't be teaching in public schools very long. You couldn't do that even in a biology class.
The fact being, unless parents abuse children in physical or sexual ways, they can pretty much do as they damn well please.
Oh, come on Bill! That dashing facial hair is just about as suggestively manslut as it gets.
you do realize that some people consider letting a child die for your imaginary sky-fairy to be physical abuse?
@Bill Dauphin
When are you going to let Janine know that isn't your real picture and you are really 17 and still living with the parents? If she knows you're not yet legal, maybe that will cool her off a bit.
;^ )
The perfect argument for geocentrism. I want to believe that the sun and everything in the universe orbits the earth, therefore it shouldn't be allowed to teach a contrary opinion in science.
Greetings!
Silver Fox asked: "The real question is: Where does one get the right to tell parents that their children are going to be taught contrary to the parents' values."
And the real answer is: When those views are contrary to the way the actual, real world works.
If you teach your children, as a matter of faith, that the moon is made of green cheese, a science teacher has not only the right, but the responsibility, to deny that faith-based teaching and correct that error.
If you teach your children, as a matter of faith, that a worldwide secret cabal of Jews kicked off WWII to gain political clout to allow for the creation of Israel, it is the right and duty of a history teacher to set you kids' thinking straight.
Likewise, if you teach your children, as a matter of faith, that there is no evidence for evolution, and that there is evidence instead for some overarching intelligent designer behind life's diversity, than it is, once again, a teacher's right and duty to teach otherwise.
As has been mentioned in several books (Dawkins and Harris, I believe), a great deal of religious instruction would be considered child abuse if not for the unjustified respect given religion in general.
Mayhempix, I am not the one who brought Bill's hotness to question. I am merely trying to end the feudin'.
Silver Fox - Are you ignoring my post to you @179?
Now you're on about more blood. Do you like human skin bound books, mini-skirts, and NDE's too? Inquiring minds want to know!
Where does one get the right to tell parents that their children are going to be taught contrary to the parents' values.
Agreed - what the parents will teach their kids at home is their damn business. I admit making a logical blunder earlier. On the other hand, what if said parents are bigots who pass on their meaningless hate to their offspring?
The problem arises when said parents think that what they're teaching their kids at home should also be mandatory for all other kids in a public school.
SEF (@183):
Sounds good at first blush... but speaking as a person who became a high school teacher with an advanced degree in my field (English) but without the traditional "B.Ed" coursework (because I decided late in the game I was interested in teaching), I can tell you from experience that your position vastly underestimates the relative importance of training in pedagogy.
Aside from (possibly) a handful of AP/IB/high honors classes, there's actually nothing in the high school curriculum that can't be taught by anyone who passed high school him/herself... provided that person is a highly skilled, well trained teacher.
That's not to say it's a bad thing for teachers to be highly educated in their subject area... but if you have to choose between expertise in pedagogy and graduate-level subject area mastery, pick pedagogy every time. Nothing learned in a graduate math class (for example) will ever appear in any high school math classroom (unless, of course, it's a graduate class in math education).
Further, as our horrifying recent experiment with No Child Left Behind shoud have taught us, requiring advanced subject area degrees in every subject taught is entirely untenable in practical terms, punsihing small schools just for being small and mitigating against offering high-value, low-enrollment classes (including many of those aforementioned advanced topics classes): Given the miserly pay they can expect to receive, how many teachers will have invested in multiple masters degrees so that they can teach both Physics and Calculus, or German and English, or Art and Computer Science? Split assignments such as these are the only way many small schools can survive, and are the only way many schools of all sizes can afford to offer advanced subjects that only consist of one or two sections per semester (and thus cannot fully employ a full-time teacher).
"You don't tell the child of a Jehovah Witness parent that it is stupid to refuse a blood transfusion."
Of course you do and the state has had to step in more than once for to make sure that children have received life saving transfusions. Personal beliefs are not a license for child abuse.
Or demand that the public school refrain from teaching anything that is contrary to their worldview. If they want to believe the world is flat and sits on the back of a tortoise, they are welcome to believe. But if they or any other student should happen to hear that the earth is held by the gravitational force of the sun...
Of course you could, as long as you didn't argue from theology. Where on earth did you get the idea you couldn't?
The silly old goat bleated
It would seem that they have the right because they are the children's parents. Parents have the PRIMARY right to educate educate their children. If they don't like what the schools are teaching their children, they can home school the kids and that is their right.
And thus being so handicapped, their chances in the outside world is hampered. But sadly, the keep insisting that the more sane and reasonable bend backwards for them.
The real question is: Where does one get the right to tell parents that their children are going to be taught contrary to the parents' values. You don't tell the child of a Jehovah Witness parent that it is stupid to refuse a blood transfusion. If you did, you wouldn't be teaching in public schools very long. You couldn't do that even in a biology class.
It is sad for the children of Jehovah Witnesses. But if you expect teachers to curtail their opinions and facts just because some parents of some students might feel insulted, well, they have to get used to it.
mayhempix - I started teasing Bill about being a hottie. He has a flattering picture up on his website.
But if he's 17 and a basement dweller, then I'm in trouble.
(keep the bucket handy Janine) ;o)
Mr Fanti hasn't been to Earth's core, but he wouldn't adduce that as an argument to doubt its existence. I think the he means "why don't we see new KINDS evolving?", even though "kinds" is an undefined concept . .
I carry no brief for Vox.
However, Vox is a first rate mind; graduated from Bucknell, member of MENSA, musician, game designer, etc.
Point being: book bashing is not confined to the "red necks" in Mississippi. There are people of standing who do the same thing.
I have some basic problems with some of Vox's formulations. He questions the omniscience of God. God is said to have a certain kind of omniscience. Well, either you're omniscience or you're not.
Vox in one piece seemed to say that on a moral plane, a woman having extramarital sex or being raped were equal because there is no hierarchy of sin. Now unless he is employing the notion of gravity in man's refutation of God in both instances or unless he is employing the Freudian notion of subconscious double bind communication, then I'm not sure what he is talking about.
Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 11, 2009 8:51 PM
"Mayhempix, I am not the one who brought Bill's hotness to question. I am merely trying to end the feudin'."
True... but you "don't have time to waste."
I am sure Bill must be loving it.
It's not who Vox is, it's the arguments you continue to quote from Vox that are terrible. Either you are taking him out of context or he is not the intellectual you should be looking up to.
Janine:
Maybe I'm just being to literal, but the idea of either one, phrased just that way, creeps me out!
Mayhempix:
Not if she's half the slut I trust she is... but as she pointed out, it was Patricia who called me a hottie (casting, I might add, severe doubt on either her eyesight or her mental faculties... or perhaps both). As Janine said,...
...to which I reply, that's not feudin', darlin'; that's flirtin'! (Now watch while I dip her pigtails in the inkwell.)
On another note, I'm afraid my several typos @196 might tend to undermine my credibility on the subject of education. I promise, they're just typos, not ignorance. [sigh]
VD is a twisted mind.
actually, at best, he's an example of how a first rate mind can be completely derailed by religion. more likely, he's a misogynist asshole sociopath.
And so what if Vox is intelligent? I wish you wouldn't use that a call to authority. Dawkins and Harris are both highly intelligent, the former being a professor at Oxford. It doesn't matter who says what, or what credentials they have, Vox Day is obviously talking shit in the parts you've quoted. Please stop selling his intellectual achievements, they just make his arguments all the more unimpressive.
"you do realize that some people consider letting a child die for your imaginary sky-fairy to be physical abuse?"
Yes I do. But that is not a decision to be made by a classroom teacher. "Consider letting a child die" is not illegal. Negligence in letting a child die is. That is a law enforcement matter. It is a judicial matter. It is not a school matter
SF, your are impressed by several things about Vox Day you shouldn't be. So he attended college. Big whoop. Probably 75% or more of the regular posters here did too. Some of us have advanced degrees. So we also know what we are talking about. To be in Mensa, all you have to do is to pass a test, or have other test scores like SAT be very high. And the people in Mensa, according to some ex members, tend to be as irrational as the rest of the people with respect to woo and religion, and always play one-upmanship mind games. So it really says nothing positive about his thinking. I think several posters here could be in Mensa if they wanted to take the test.
You are having trouble understanding Vox Day's statements because they are irrational woo. They aren't superintelligent, just super irrational woo.
Have you even PLAYED his titles? As an avid gamer, I don't see how this means to make Vox any more appealing, especially in light of all the shovelware being churned out today by so-called "designers."
Patricia, OM #201 wrote:
And you're really in trouble if he's in The Guild.
While I haven't liked her choice of movies lately, I really liked Katherine Hegel (sic) in Knocked Up. I didn't know that she was THAT important to Marxism.
I guess that explains 28 Dresses Later or whatever that movie was.
@SEF (#183)
"First you need to ensure that the only people eligible to teach at all are the ones with genuine qualifications in the subject they supposedly teach (and at a significantly higher level than their students). So all high school teachers would need a degree in a real subject and not one of those fake degrees in B.Ed. or anything from a degree mill. Otherwise you simply end up with the same bunch of incompetents and religious nutters in charge of regulating themselves at teaching."
That's (more or less) the idea. I was simplifying it because I didn't want to go into a rant on technocracy, but basically I think we need to start treating K-12 education as seriously as we treat higher education. I have a very complicated theory in the works of exactly how to reform K-12 education. It's called Academic Political Sovereignty. I could go on, or I could tell you to read my blog. I will be making a post on this subject soon.
"I want to believe that the sun and everything in the universe orbits the earth, therefore it shouldn't be allowed to teach a contrary opinion in science."
I want to believe that 2 plus 2 is 3; therefore no contrary teaching can be taught.
Neither of the examples above is theoretical; evolution is. We are never going to understand anything different than that it is a heliocentric universe; we are never going to understand that 2 plus 2 is anything but 4. However, our understanding of evolution is GOING to change - guaranteed. How it is going to change, we don't know.
ARRGH! @206, "to literal" should be "too literal," obviously. Maybe I should turn in my English degrees? [blushes in shame]
s/change/improve
Fixed
"Vox is a first rate mind; graduated from Bucknell, member of MENSA, musician, game designer, etc"
Vox Day is an insecure hypocrite who needs to constantly boast about his purported female conquests and then degrades women as inferior to men in the eyes of god while reminding everyone he once had a Porsche and a record contract. The latter part describes just about everyone I know in Los Angeles. The picture of him brandishing his flaming sword of justice is too funny. And as Nerd pointed out, being a member of Mensa does not one preclude one from being a woo filled superstitous crank.
SF does not know what a theory means in science. Why am I not surprised?
Firstly our understanding of the universe has vastly changed. We don't live in a heliocentric universe, we live in a heliocentric solar system that is about 30,000 light years from the supermassive black hole that sits at the centre, which in turn is one of hundreds of billions of galaxies that are part of the observable universe - a universe that doesn't have a centre by all counts of theoretical physics.Secondly evolution happened. Not one experiment in the last 150 years, not one fossil find, not one piece of genetic code, has ever cast cast doubt onto the validity of evolution. It's a theory as strong as heliocentric orbit, you can't get a more fundamental truth in science than evolution. But like the earth's position in the universe, our understanding of how life came about has changed through measurement. All science is tentative and evolution is no different. You are misrepresenting what science is and misrepresenting the nature of evolution in the way you single it out.
James F - Oh shit...
SF bleated
Evolution is a Scientific Theory. This means it has a huge volume of evidence to back it up. I would guess at least 100,000 scientific papers, if not ten times that number. Pretending that it is still a guess in the presence of professional scientists is severe delusional on your part. So, you need to either start using the proper definition of a scientific theory, meaning a well established set of facts with a ton of evidence, or just stop talking about it at all. You just look stupid using the wrong definition.
Silver Fox - You really are lame. You come here touting Vox Day, your hero, and now that he, and you have been shredded, you back down.
Coward!
The quotes he pulls from Vox Day make a lot more sense in light of that information. Our understanding of where the earth sits in the cosmos has had a far more radical shift in understanding in the last hundred years than the theory of evolution has. The expanding universe, distant galaxies, black holes, the big bang theory, general relativity, e=mc²; all these have fundamentally altered how we see the earth and it's position in the cosmos. By contrast, the basic premise of evolution has not changed much in the last 150 years, and indeed as we discover more and more information including the discovery of genetics and uncovered much of the fossil record. Time and time again we confirm evolutionary theory as we delve more and more into biology.
@ Silver Fox
Oh killfile script, how do I love thee, let me count the ways...
Good night sweethearts! (and hotties)
"as a matter of faith, that the moon is made of green cheese". This is not a theory, its a fact that the moon's not made of green cheese. We've been there.
"World War II was started by a Jewish Cabal. That is neither a fact nor a theory (that I know of)
"That the world is flat" That is neither a fact nor a theory. Not even the flat earth people really believe that.
Evolution is a fact. Natural selection, transpeciation, mutation are part of the theory. The problem with evolution is that you can't teach the facts without teaching the theory. That's what separates the creationists from the evolutionists. The mechanism. Of course there are some creationists who would not concede that evolution is a fact. But, it takes all kinds.
SF, you aren't getting it, and never will get it. A scientific theory is as good as a fact. It just lacks about a part per trillion doubt that can never be removed. Part per trillion. I've heard that described as one drop of vermouth in railroad tanker car full of gin. Its so small don't bother to worry about the doubt. It is effectively a fact. Either get with the program or go away.
Do you even understand what science is? Theories are far more important than the facts because they make the facts make sense. Theories are the most important element of science. Having a hammer drop to the ground is an observed fact, but it doesn't make much sense without the theory of gravity to explain it.Gosh, you really are a thick one.
"more likely, he's a misogynist asshole sociopath."
Well, he doesn't believe in gender equality. Maybe we should leave it like that.
"Dawkins and Harris are both highly intelligent, the former being a professor at Oxford."
Actually Kel, he's given up that professorship.
Why don't you just get your lips from VD's butt and stop admiring him. That will solve your problem.
That is what you need to do, and get with the program on what evolution really means, and how much evidence backs it up.
Well no shit. Way to miss the point though, the point was that appealing to someone as being intelligent is no sound basis for either accepting or rejecting their arguments. You are making an appeal to authority by continuously rattling off Vox Day's achievements. Stop that
A quick look the Brunswick County School website shows how shallow they are. Of the four members for whom something resembling a CV is given, the chair has taken some community college courses but with no degree (she's worked as book keeper and teacher's aide); the vice chair has community college degree in law enforcement and is/was a police officer. The other two members listed have accounting and law degrees respectively. I doubt there's a science course to be had among the lot.
Silver Fox,
Dawkins is still a 'professorial fellow' at Oxford (specifically New College); what he 'gave up' is the Simonyi Professorship of the Public Understanding of Science.
In science:Fact - Facts are empirical data, objective verifiable observations.Theory - A scientific theory is a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions.
"boast about his purported female conquests"
Don't tell me he dated Ann Coulter of the lithe and supple body, long blond hair and long legs. That would be too much to take at this time of night. Denesh D'Souza dated her a while back. If she's now dating Vox I wouldn't necessarily see that as an upgrade.
Technically, yes. He reached the mandatory retirement age for the professorship chair. Not a voluntary leaving like you implied.
"SF does not know what a theory means in science. Why am I not surprised"
A theory in science and everywhere else is looking at the facts, constructing a PLAUSIBLE explanation, constructing a test design, getting other facts, either in confirmation or refutation, constructing a PLAUSIBLE explanation ... and the wheel goes round and round.
It missed the point to even say that. It was to say that Dawkins was a professor at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, he was also an assistant lecturer at Berkeley. He's also a best-selling author writing many influential books, but none of that really matters in the end. It's not Dawkins' intellect that people appeal to, it's the arguments he uses.
ba-bow, wrong answer. The correct answer is "A scientific theory is a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions."
Silver lies
That is not the definition for a scientific theory, so you lie big time. But what else is new. Check my link in #223 to find your error, then be man enough to admit it. If you can't admit it, go away.
"you back down coward!"
What are you talking about?
I said Vox is an intelligent creative thinker.
I said I have many problems with his formulations.
I said that evolution is a plausible explanation in accounting for the development of species is a FACT.
If you are saying the Vox is retarded; if you want to say that you have no problems with his formulations; or, if you want to say that evolution does not account for the development of species, then we have a difference of opinion.
The universe doesn't have a center. It appears centered on our galaxy* but that's an optical illusion. The universe is also centered on a galaxy four billion parsecs away, or at least that's what would appear to an inhabitant of that galaxy.
*Our solar system is out in the galactic suburbs, about halfway between the galactic center and the galactic rim.
All you've offered us from his are not particularly good strawman arguments. His intelligence, creativity and thought are unproved by your examples.
But you quote him anyway. Are you working on the "stopped clock is right twice a day" concept or is there some other reason you gave us a couple of poor arguments from VD?
Sorry, folks, for the blockquote fail in #246.
"FSM started, with the dial set to 11: Instead of going to the bother of choosing amongst the myths, invent a new and obviously-absurd one. Then demand it also be taught."
THAT IS SO UNFAIR! as one who has been touched by her noodly appendages I have to tell you first that our faith is NOT ABSURD! It explains many many mysteries in this would because we know that the FSM interferes with the information we measure as light or touch or smell, and changes the elements to evoke the desired effect.
ALSO YOUR FACTS ARE WRONG! Pastafarians have not demanded that our religious beliefs be taught in schools. We have requested that if any other religious belief system should get a chance to be taught then, since our religion has not only a drawing but ALSO a graph, that ours should be first. Or at least second.
and since FSM is the FASTEST growing religion, perhaps of all time, you would do well to hold your tounge in any event.
Happy Ramen.
Silver Phlox gave a reasonable explanation of a scientific hypothesis.
Isaac Asmov, a former Mensan expressed ambivolence twards the organization because of his experiences with some members. To address Silver Phlox's worship of Vox Day's intellectual prowess, Asimov stated of Mensians: "Furthermore, I became uncomfortably aware that Mensans, however high their paper IQ might be, were likely to be as irrational as anybody else."
Silver Fox @ 210
It certainly is a school matter if the child attends that school. At least in Texas, teachers are under legal obligation to alert authorities if they even suspect physical or mental abuse. Where in the world is it OK for teachers to turn a blind eye to abuse that could lead to the death of a child?
Even if there is no legal obligation in some weird corner of the world that is more regressive than Texas, teachers (and everyone else with knowledge of the situation) have a moral obligation to prevent the death of a child. Or is it OK to sacrifice a child to stupidity if the parent's claim that as a religious right?
Greetings!
Thank you for looking over my response Silver Fox. Unfortunately, I found your response in turn a bit ambiguous...
Do you feel I have answered the question you asked adequately?
My examples were supposed to be at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek, perhaps I missed the mark.
One could say, for example, that the moon is made of green cheese, just that to any physical test, it appears to be mainly rock (just as a cracker is, apparently, sometimes not a cracker - even when it is..)
And not that I wish to raise the ghost of the Crackergate biz again (and it is OT for this thread, but...)
We have had presented several variants of the idea that any host that was acquired by someone not intending to carry out the exact ritual is somehow fraudulent due to misrepresentation.
Wouldn't that same logic state that the priest giving out the wafers be equally guilty of fraud? He is blatantly misrepresenting his product - it is not human tissue. It is not any-one's body, broken for us (until after we eat it, anyway, then some parts of it become some parts of our body...)
Please feel free to ignore the OT bit of my posting, and my apologies if it's not a good place/time for it.
'The topic came up after county resident Joel Fanti told the board he thought it was unfair for evolution to be taught as fact, saying it should be taught as a theory because there's no tangible proof it's true.
"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said.'
Does Fanti take his reasoning and apply it to the Bible too? He wasn't there 2000 years ago, so how does he know Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles and was resurrected? Yet he still believes this even though there's no tangible proof. What's with his double standards?
Evolution may be slow, but it not as "slow" as Mr. Fanti appears to be.
That is flat out obviously wrong.
Among Vox's various symptoms is an incredible hatred of women. He doesn't like most men either. Vox just sort of hates everyone.
This is mental illness. He is said to be a lot like his father. Who is in prison right now.
In Italian "Fanti" is a plural noun meaning (a)infantrymen or (b)knaves or jacks in a deck of playing cards
"Fool" can be translated as "Sciocco".
I'm an atheist living in NC and for years I've kept a low profile. Mainly because these people are so stupid they are down right scary. I don't even think it's possible to get them to understand creationism (or ID) is NOT science. Actually, I don't think they care at all, I think they want a Theocracy to run the state.
If you think the issue in Brunswick is bad, you should check out the NC state constitution. See http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html - look at the...
Preamble
Article VI: Suffrage And Eligibility To Office: section 8
ARTICLE IX: EDUCATION: section 1
... That was already 3 strikes for me. I would have to say they just don't care about my rights, nor the proper education of children, nor the separation of church and state.
I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure that there is a law in America that clearly separates religion and government.
In that sense, shouldn't it be unconstitutional (therefore illegal) to teach religion in public schools?
From the fact of the parents' values being contrary to reality.
Or, and perhaps more importantly from a strictly utilitarian standpoint, from the fact of the parents' values being contrary to the examination syllabus devised by the matriculation board.
"At least in Texas, teachers are under legal obligation to alert authorities if they even suspect physical or mental abuse."
Absolutely correct, Tex. Teachers are under legal obligations to ALERT authorities. It is a law enforcement problem which is exactly what I said.
From the fact of the parents' values being contrary to reality.
Or, and perhaps more importantly from a strictly utilitarian standpoint, from the fact of the parents' values being contrary to the examination syllabus devised by the matriculation board.
Nerd wrote:
I don't think this is a good way to try and demonstrate to the fox that theories aren't guesses. It presumes that all facts are created equal (not accurate-some observations have very small amounts of error associated with them; some have larger amounts) and it presumes that facts are True and cannot be later found to be wrong (or altered with time). Oh, and I just noticed that it also presumes that all theories are created equal in terms of their "strength." Theories can get overturned if we find something that they can't explain and we cannot adjust them (just the "fact" that we've devised a theory to explain a set of observations or unite a group of hypotheses doesn't mean that it won't later need fixing or even rejecting). Also, "good" theories tend to get better with age (maybe we should try and create an index of "seasoning" for theories! ;) ). I think most of us would agree that the ToE is a better (I dunno, "stronger?") theory now than it was in 1859.
I dunno, I guess my point is that science isn't static, and I think we should try and avoid, whenever possible, language that implies it is. Language that implies facts and theories are the same thing doesn't really help us make progress against anti-reason. Facts and theories are essential to science, but they are different things. I think we need to keep reinforcing the distinction.
If grass grows so slow, how come I sit out on my front lawn and watch it, and it doesn't seem to grow at all?
Not enough typos, huh? =P
Do these morons actually think about what they say before opening their traps?
Rhetorical question, no need to answer.....
Josh, I tend to be more absolute when dealing with ignoramuses like SF, because they latch onto any equivation to say you don't know what you are talking about. The old black/white mentality. I fully understand that even the mature atomic theory, which I use every time I go into the lab, is not absolutely correct. But the part per google doubt doesn't mean that there is need for an alternative explanation. Faux needs to understand that. Will the details of the ToE change? Of course. The main ideas? Probably not.
Luckily, the NC science standards people are still saying there's not a chance in hell. This is depressing and extremely stupid, not to mention frustrating, but it won't actually happen.
No, it really isn't very clear at all, and actually quite vague. That is the whole problem. All it is, "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.". And just as Alexander Hamilton predicted in The Federalist Papers (in discussing a Bill of Rights), if you write into the Constitution what it can't do, that must mean there is something Congress can do about it. That is, if you put a restriction on a power not given to Congress, that automatically gives it the power not explicitely forbidden. And so the debate rages about how much religion can be put into the laws and whether they constitute "establishment" or restrict "free exercise".
Nerd, please don't interpret my earlier comment as implying that I thought you didn't understand the finer points. Even though it was addressed to you, I was writing that mostly for Fox's benefit.
I'm with you. I'm just always worried that if we go in the "absolute" direction, then they are going to latch onto that impression of certainty, interpret the flavor of the technical literature (be it titles or abstracts) as not squaring with that perceived certainty, and use that against us (such as "you guys are misrepreseting how much we know about evolution"). Which of course they do anyway, so I guess we're f-ed no matter what we do. When the person you're trying to have a rational conversation with holds rational thought in contempt, I guess you're forced onto fairly narrow ground.
I think you had a great blog post up until the end. You may disagree with me, or you may not care about this, but saying things like "I'd like to see the kiddies learning that the Bible is incoherent trash in Sunday School." and "Genesis is garbage" is just adding fuel to the fire of the anti-science people out there who think equate science with atheism, and anti-religion and hence who are leading the crusade against scientific "materialism" as they call it.
Half the problem with the creationist crowd is that they associate creationism with anti-evolutionism but the two are not in direct opposition. You are guilty of the same thing here in equating creationist nonsense with Christianity itself. Dissing Genesis - a book that has influenced millions of Jews and Christians over the course of history is bordering on ... well I won't use the word out of respect. I like your work and what you do. I'm a scientist and completely against creationism and ID. But I am also a mainstream Christian and believe that hating religion by scientists harms science and reason in the long run. Try tolerance and understanding.... not tolerating insane/ridiculous falsehoods but tolerating or understanding why people believe in God. EVEN if you believe, like some scientists, that religion is just an evolutionary/biological holdout, you can still have compassion on the people and not condemn the religion itself. anyway that is just my opinion. Genesis is a beautiful allegory for the evolution of consciousness - read it that way. Have you ever? The "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil" is pretty damn profound. Even if you believe it is merely myth, it's literature, and it's poetically written and there's no reason to call it trash. That's simply disrepsectful.
No, silver fox; it is emphatically not a "plausible" explanation! I don't know whether you're being specious or really don't know the exact definition of "plausible", but either way you're wrong.
the Theory of Evolution is:
1)testably credible and functional
2)increasingly precise
3)predictive
4)the only idea about the origin of species to which 1 through 3 apply
therefore, some unsubstantiated religious opinion (which isn't even plausible, ironically) will not and should not be put anywhere near it, nevermind side-by-side in science class.
and yes, I'm fully aware he does not believe in gender equality, but unless he can explain away the history's Bouddiccas, Marie Curies and Artemisia Gentileschis, as well as modern womens successes, he should STFU
1)all religion is ridiculous; it's all magical thinking
2)we understand why people believe in God, and we're tolerant of it as long as it stays private; we have however no reason to be respectful of it once it's out in the open. ideas, even the sacred cow of religion, are all open to criticism and ridicule. it's called free speech
3)we will continue condemning religion as long as it produces the cruel and inhumane results it constantly does produce
4)How do you know which parts of the bible are allegorical, methaphorical etc, and which are literally true? I know how historians answer that question, but how do moderate Christians? How can Genesis be an allegory, but the Ressurrection literally true? are there god-given footnotes?
Actually, tardboy, natural selection and mutation are part of the fact of evolution, just as they are part of the theory.
We say that evolution is a fact because we match up cause and effect, and at this point we are able to match up the expected effects coming from the causal factors of RM + NS (and other mechanisms) to demonstrate that evolution occurred--and is a fact. The fact that you want to separate cause and effect in science shows what a moron you are.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Basic Atheist @256:
You've got to be fucking kidding me. This is really in the North Carolina Constitution:
As far as I can tell, it's never been challenged in court.
The only commentary I could find on it is a law review article, 64 North Carolina Law Review 1071. Apparently, it used to be even worse:
"Religious test," anyone?
Tsk tsk tsk... you aren't even considering the advantages for a college student to take a Creationism class, P.Z.
1.) The classes are short. Really short. The entire curriculum can probably be taught in one day. ("Good morning class! Welcome to Creationism 101. Lesson One... 'God Diddit.' Class dismissed.")
2.) I bet the final for Creationism 101 will be wonderfully easily. 'God Diddit' will probably be a sufficient answer for every question on the exam.
3.) No studying is necessary for this course! Talk about an easy A.
"parents' values being contrary to reality."
Whose reality? Mine, yours or the parents
"parents' values being contrary to the examination syllabus devised by the matriculation board."
Matriculation?? There's no need to be using that kind of language here referencing self-induced sexual pleasure.
that's not how reality works
and i sure hope that was a weird attempt at a joke
Parents do not get to dictate what constitutes reality. Not in science classes in public schools. Their opinions about reality are irrelevant. Science isn't democratic. If they want to dictate to their children a version of reality that is in conflict with what science understands reality to be, parents are free to avail themselves of the many resources in the home schooling world.
#272- Aphrodine-
LOL yes you are absolutely right- Creationism class eould be a piece of cake. Actually that reminds me of a post a put on Richarddawkins.net a while back :-
Let's teach Creationism.
Lesson 1- What is Creationism and what does it say:-
"The Magic man in the sky did it"
End of lesson.
Lesson 2- Erm.....
How about teaching the "Strengths and Weaknesses" of Creation "Theory":-
Strengths- Erm.... It coincides with what Mommy and Daddy told you and it's so simple to understand?
Weaknesses- Well, everything- No evidence in favour. The "Theory" makes no predictions, is not testable in any way and has a explanatory potential of precisely zero. On the other hand, there is masses of evidence across numerous disiplines testifying to the Truth of Evolution and a 4.5 billion year old Earth. Evolution has masses of explanatory potential, is testable (and has been tested rigously for 150 years) and can be used to make predictions. It is also falsifyable.
End of lesson 2.
Lesson 3- Are you still a creationist and why are there so many dumbasses who still believe this shit?
I'm looking forward to lesson 3!!!
In science class, that determined by science. There is no other acceptable answer.
Re 271:
That is in the federal constitution and applies to federal offices, not state offices defined by their respective state constitutions. State constitutions are supreme unless explicitely overridden by the federal constitution.
I've been too busy today to read through this whole mess. Several posters up above wanted the name of a Left Wing Creationist. Here's one I think most people will recognize;
President Jimmy Carter
I'm sure I can find more if I waist time looking but I think that pretty much covers it. Read his bio. He has always been a very devout Christian even though he has a Bachelor of Science degree from the Naval Academy.
If Carter is an actual creationist, then why did he speak out so strongly against the Cobb County BoE's actions?
@280, here's what Carter actually said about Cobb County's attempts to defame evolution:
I know of no statements by Carter alluding to any support of creationism. I have to wonder if Knipfer is under the delusion that acceptance of evolution=atheism, one of the oldest and lamest creationist lies.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
@ 279
I don't think it's that simple. Here's Article VI, s. 3:
I read that to apply to "any office or public trust" in both state and federal offices "under the United States."
The Wikipedia entry on the subject notes that there has been some litigation on this issue, but the Supreme Court has not ruled on it:
The issue is definitely not as cut-and-dried as you asserted.
Jimmy Carter was left wing? The US must have the balance point waaaaaay out to the right.
Glen Davidson #282,
Well said. I think some confusion arises because Carter was affiliated with the typically YEC Southern Baptist Convention until 2000. According to (ugh) Wikipedia, he "severed ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, saying the group's doctrines did not align with his Christian beliefs."
Re 283:
I stand corrected. Thanks.
JadeHawk @269: Mind if I add a #5 to your list?
5) we will continue to scrape religion off the bottom of our shoes like the smelly waste matter it is.
ugh
booo
booooo
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:
Publish failed: An error occurred publishing entry 'Brunswick, North Carolina: Ground zero for stupidity': Publish error in template 'Individual Entry Archive': Error in tag: error in module Channel Assignments: Publish error in template 'Channel Assignments': Error in tag: Field channel not defined
um
catastrophic commenting fail.
Is there an explanation on the new commenting somewhere?
test
test
"Parents do not get to dictate what constitutes reality"
In a democracy, reality is what the majority says it is and right now, in Mississippi and North Carolina, they're saying its not evolution. Of course, we do have to give a wink and a nod to the rights of the minority. Now you might be able to argue from some philosophical ontological stand point that reality is reality regardless what anyone says but that's just whistling in the graveyard. Just ask any elected official what reality is.
SF, still missing the point. Science decides what is science. Not school boards or parents (or you). School boards can decide not to teach science, but then they lose accreditation and their students can't get into college. But if they teach science, they can't add non-science components to the class and call it science.
I can't wait for the time when 50.1% of a state decide that the holocaust didn't happen, then we'll see how much people care protecting fact from the tyranny of a democracy.
What it comes down to is legislators in those states are Lying for Jesus™, they are deliberately misrepresenting the nature of science and the nature of evolution by singling it out and using equivocation in the terms they use. Do you find it okay to lie as long as it's in Jesus' name, or is it simply you don't like the theory of evolution so you are backing anyone to silence facts they don't like? (note that in that sentence I'm using theory in the scientific sense, and fact in the colloquial sense)
Hey Chimpy, you lost your link to your blog with that TypeKey sign in.
In a democracy, reality is what the majority says it is and right now, in Mississippi and North Carolina, they're saying its not evolution.
I could swear I'm being Poe'd.
Posted by: Silver Fox | January 12, 2009
In a democracy, reality is what the majority says it is and right now, in Mississippi and North Carolina, they're saying its not evolution. Of course, we do have to give a wink and a nod to the rights of the minority. Now you might be able to argue from some philosophical ontological stand point that reality is reality regardless what anyone says but that's just whistling in the graveyard. Just ask any elected official what reality is.
The silly old goat cannot tell the difference between nature and the government. Hate to break this to the silly old goat but evolution happened for billions of years before there were creatures self aware enough to notice. Evolution happened while humans only had the most rudimentary knowledge of what it might be. (Animal husbandry) And evolution happens in monarchies, dictatorships, tyrannies, democracies and republics. So what if there are laws that denies the truth. Evolution will continue to happen until life comes to an end.
Jeez, the quality of day old troll really sucks.
That's the main reason why I've resisted getting a typekey signature. It's all about promotion!
SF was never that smart of a troll to begin with, and his case of VD browsing took what was left of his brains and dribbled part of them on the floor. Watch your step.
Ewww - oh thank you Nerd. I'll take your manly arm and step over the kack. I don't want it on my ruby slippers.
KING: By the way, as a Christian, do you believe in creationism?
CARTER: I believe there's a supreme being, God, who created the entire universe, yes. And I am a scientist, as a matter of fact, as you may know, I studied nuclear physics. I helped to develop nuclear submarines. So, I believe in science. I believe we ought to explore the far outreaches of space. We ought to make sure we understand everything we can about the particles that make up the atoms.
I think we ought to discover everything we can about science. It ought to be accepted as proved unless it's discounted. I believe still in a supreme being. But, I don't believe that we ought to teach religious matters in a science classroom, because I think that the two ought not to be related.
They ought to be completely separate. And I don't think anyone, Larry, interferes in full belief in the other. I believe completely in scientific proofs and values unless they're discounted. I believe in a supreme being. But, I don't believe you ought to teach creationism in the science classroom.
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Former President Jimmy Carter said Friday he was embarrassed by the Georgia Department of Education proposal to eliminate the word "evolution" from the state's curriculum.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/georgia.evolution/index.html
"in Mississippi and North Carolina, they're saying its not evolution."
Oops!! Add Georgia to the list.
"the Georgia Department of Education proposal to eliminate the word "evolution" from the state's curriculum."
Now, folks, you can rant and bellow all you want about "science determining what science is", but in the public schools of those three States, the State Departments of Education are going to determine what science is. Now, understand what I am saying: outside of those schools science may be very different from what it is inside of them. Science may determine what science is outside of those schools, but inside, the School Boards determine what science is, what textbooks are used and what teachers are NOT allowed to teach. And if teachers do not like that arrangement, they would be well advised to pack up and leave. Those Boards, which are elected, are reflecting the views of the majority of their constituencies. Now, you and I may think those constituencies are rednecks, hillbillies, wingnuts, etc. You might also add Louisiana to the list since last year they passed an "evolution/creation law.
And we all know that education departments in backwards states know better than those big-city scientist-type folks...Sometimes I swear you are a poe.
Wrong, the school board determines what to teach, but the definition of science does not change on what some school board says. Are you honestly that think Max?
Just to parallel this argument:Imagine there was a school board of education that was looking over the teaching of religious studies. When it came to the subject of Christianity, the school board decided to change the definition of Christianity to people who believe that God was a hermaphrodite and came down to earth in order to get into some bisexual hijinks. But unfortunately he/she was caught in the act and had it's penis cut off. The penis was crucified but magically it rose on the third day where it was touched by women.Does this mean that the definition of Christianity has changed? Of course not. Does it mean they have the power to teach that in their schools? Of course they do. Does it mean that theologians, historians, and believers from around the world will rally against a school board that does such a thing? It's highly likely.Now take the argument back to evolution. The school board can say evolution means whatever they want it to, and they can teach the children as such. But that doesn't mean they have the power to change the definition. Nor does it mean that they can act without a backlash from a community opposed to the blatant misrepresentation of the concept.
KEL:
You are missing the point completely.
Could a School Board change the definition of Christianity as you suggested? No. Why? Because it would be absolutely contrary to the view of their constituencies and they are elected. So unless they wanted to commit political suicide, they wouldn't do it. There would be no backlash.
They can't change the definition of Christianity because their constituencies won't allow it.
Take astrology. In those States mentioned, astrology is held in profound disregard. Would a School Board decide to define it as science or religion? No. Why? Because it would not reflect the view of their constituencies.
Now take evolution in those States. Why are those Boards defining evolution as "not science" within their school systems and deleting the very word from their textbooks?
Because it reflects the view of their constituencies.
What in hell difference it makes to a child who attends a school where the definition of science is "not evolution" that outside his school the definition of science includes evolution? The child is going to be taught according to the school's definition, not the National Institute of Science's definition.
Max, first thanks for getting my name right. Second, you missed my point by a long way. I used Christianity as an example to show the fallacious nature of the argument, it wasn't about whether it was possible or not. It's a thought experiment.
Which is wrong, which is why people are getting up in arms about it. have you learnt nothing outside of a Vox Day rag?
What in hell difference it makes to a child who attends a school where the definition of science is "not evolution" that outside his school the definition of science includes evolution?
Here is what the hell difference it makes, what about those children who hold an interest in the sciences and have the ability to work at it. How well are they going to do in taking the standardized tests in order to try to move on to the colleges and university?
You are arguing that it is quite alright to make these children intellectually handicapped simply because a "majority" of people in certain places dislike evolution.
Max Verret, do you subscribe to truthiness? It sounds like you are doing a very truthiness concept there, only instead of wikipedia you are doing it on a democratic level...Scientists deciding what is science and what isn't? What has this world come to. It's those in charge of education with no formal training in science who should decide based on the democratic ideal. E ≠ mc², it's a matter of the majority rejecting the non-Euclidian spacetime model as proposed by Einstein. Sorry brainiac, the mob has spoken!
Why do you insist that parents be allowed to ensure that their children are no better informed about science than they themselves are?
All the evidence for the Bible's truth you need.
http://www.fixedearth.com/
Last Hussar, all that site proves is that someone is insane.
But teh bible says its true. This is what happens when you don't define how all men are born equal. Funny how they all pick on scientists, and don't demand to play professional sports on the same basis.
When fairness in competition is ruined by genetics, then what sense is there of a fair fight?
I see SF is still failing his remedial science classes, and now needs a remedial class in civics and a remedial class in logic. Is there anything he doesn't need a remedial class in? Too much VD will rot your brain. Especially if it was unused to begin with.
But again, science doesn't give a shit what political spectra dominate the countries in which its practitioners live. Science isn't democratic and couldn't care less what a bunch of "regular joes" in America opine regarding evolution. Public high schools in the United States don't teach the American (fuck yeah!) version of Cell Theory. They don't teach the American version of Atomic Theory. They don't teach the American version of the hypothesis of seafloor spreading. Why on earth should we think it's appropriate for these same schools to teach some American version of life "science" which misrepresents modern biology?
Wow! I estimate its craziness at 800 mTc.
I have seen that site linked here before. I am hoping that Last Hussar is a joke persona.
And we (the members of the scientific community) are going to fight against the actions of those state D's of E because they are being negligent in their duties. They can choose what to teach, but we can also complain when they’re advocating the teaching of nonsense.
Again, these boards of education are NOT arguing that flat earth theory be taught as an alternative to Plate Tectonics or some other similar foolishness. They are NOT arguing that an atom is the smallest building block of matter and that it’s indivisible—and that this should be taught as an alternative to Atomic Theory. They are NOT proposing to teach geocentrism. So it isn't that science is different outside of schools than it is inside of them. You’re misrepresenting the situation. The situation is that some people who don't know what the hell they're talking about are trying to tell biologists that what they understand about biology is wrong while at the same time benefiting from the fruits that biology provides.
And school boards that do that are being negligent in their duties, are hurting the children they were elected to serve, and need to be removed from office. They get to choose what to teach, but they’re supposed to be responsible in their decisions. Misrepresenting science doesn’t really qualify.
Wrong. Science teachers, when faced with an irresponsible and negligent school board, are well advised to do exactly what the science teachers in the Dover Area School District did in late 2004 and early 2005. They are well advised to collectively tell the school board that they (the teachers) will not be intimidated into lying to their students.
So if the majority of their constituencies opine that the world is flat, and can mobilize a large effort that pushes teaching flat earth theory as an alternative to the theory of a spherical earth, the effort should be enthusiastically welcomed by the school board? And if the teachers don't like it, then they are well advised to pack their bags and move away? What's the difference between the situation I describe and manufacturing a different scientific controversy that doesn't exist and trying to get it taught? Because a portion of a school district's residents do not believe in the idea of a spherical earth, we should alter what we teach about what science currently understands the shape of the planet to be?
If that’s the case, and the district’s residents get to decide curriculum, then why stop at science? If the majority of the residents opine that the attack on Pearl Harbor never took place, and can mobilize an effort toward removing all mention of it from the curriculum, should that action be enthusiastically welcomed by the school board? And if the teachers don't like it, then they are well advised to pack their bags and move away? Why do you trust that historians know what they’re doing, but presume to dictate what science knows and what it doesn’t?
"Which is wrong, which is why people are getting up in arms about it"
What they're getting up in arms about is getting evolution out of their schools and out of their textbooks. There's no groundswell of support to teach "godless" evolution in their schools. They are getting up in arms to preserve their religious beliefs and nothing could be less WRONG than that.
"Which is wrong, which is why people are getting up in arms about it"
What they're getting up in arms about is getting evolution out of their schools and out of their textbooks. There's no groundswell of support to teach "godless" evolution in their schools. They are getting up in arms to preserve their religious beliefs and nothing could be less WRONG than that.
If they keep it out of science classrooms, then we're fine. We're not trying to shove science into their Sunday sermons. Their religious beliefs do NOT belong in science classrooms.
I'm not so sure about STUpid's place in the periodic table. It, maye, more properly be classified after Radon but before the Actinoids.
For while ignorance is natural, stupid takes real commitment to create. After a multi-millenial half life, it decays into an even more unstable element of society.
If you want a joke persona see Silver Fox. Any one who can say "In a democracy, reality is what the majority says it is" is either a Poe, or an idiot.
Janine, read my first post again. You know that optical illusion that can be a candle or two people facing each other- do the language equivalent of that. I am completely right- It proves what we should think about the Bible as accurate.
Now consider my second post. Sarah Palin considers herself equal to scientists- see her comments on French Fruit Flies. She obviously feels qualified to comment. So do her supporters. "All men are born equal, therefore our view should count as much as elites". None of them ever say "All men are born equal, so I should be QB for the NY Giants".
I have seen arguements made for the reason why the North did so badly at the start of the Civil War, in that volunteer soldiers wouldn't always accept a chain of command- they were fighting for democracy, so who was this jumped up Captain ordering them around. In 1861 some units DEMOCRATICALLY removed officers- Jews, Catholics etc- and replaced them with 'W.A.S.P.'s. Which how you ended up with the Shrub for 8 years.
Again, Evolution ≠ atheism
Unfortunately he's no poe
Evolution is exactly as "godless" as physics, chemistry, astronomy, and medicine. Which is to say, god is not mentioned when teaching those sciences either. If they wish to say that god caused the universe to exist, and therefore caused physics, chemistry, astronomy (etc), well, they are free to say so — in their churches. But science classes are supposed to teach science, not religion.
Their religious beliefs belong in their churches, and even in their homes. Science classes teach the facts and theories as currently understood. If their religious beliefs teach that 1=3, then those religious beliefs do not belong in a mathematics class. If their religious beliefs teach that evolution did not happen, then those religious beliefs do not belong in a biology classroom.
I see the folks have been busy trashing the Fox.
"Too much VD will rot your brain."
I know I'm repeating myself but I have said on a number of occasions that I have serious issues with many of Vox's offering. That does not seem to get across.
What I admire about him is his near flawless commend of the English language. He can take any position on any issue and turn it into an eloquent and entertaining commentary. I, as you well know, do not have his linguistic joie de vivre style, even though from time to time I attempt a little Joycean stream of consciousness and a little Faulknerian down home corn porn.
You get that across fine, but the parts you have quoted from him are the problem. They were really terrible, poorly argued and misrepresenting the issues at hand. Now it may be that you just took a snippet and left off the super-fantastic part where it became something more than "I hate Sam Harris", but really if those were the parts you did like, I'd hate to see the parts you didn't.
*snrk*
Posted by: Last Hussar is a real person | January 13, 2009
Janine, read my first post again. You know that optical illusion that can be a candle or two people facing each other- do the language equivalent of that. I am completely right- It proves what we should think about the Bible as accurate.
I must be the rankest of fools because I cannot even begin to understand that. Can someone explain this to me?
Last Hussur:
"If you want a joke persona see Silver Fox. Any one who can say "In a democracy, reality is what the majority says it is" is either a Poe, or an idiot."
Who is this person?
Joke persona? What is that?
They ended up with the shrub for 8 years? What does that mean?
I never said the majority determines reality. I said that in a classroom where the majority of the constituency that elects the School Board determines that science doesn't include evolution, the latter is not going to be taught in that classroom because the Board policies are going to reflect the view of the majority of their constituency
This is true and you can see it from one end of this country to the other. Read P.Z.'s last post on this thread and you can add Texas to the list.
That's truthiness in a nutshell.
"In a democracy, reality is what the majority says it is" - right there in post 294, by Silver Fox. Even if you only meant with in a school setting it still isn't true that Reality is defined by people. Circles do not give one jot if every person on this planet decided pi=3, Circumference to Diameter will continue to be an awkward ratio to pin down.
Janine- Try this. "Sarah Palin's speech shows how much she values the use of fruit flies to understand disease" A statement that appears to support SP, until you look at the facts. Likewise, my link shows the foolishness that can be extraced from the Bible.
And a shrub is like a little bush, usually of no use except as an ornament.
'Circles do not give one jot if every person on this planet decided pi=3, Circumference to Diameter will continue to be an awkward ratio to pin down."
Circles and Pi are not political entities. And they don't conflict with anyone's religion that I know of.
Are you trying to imply that evolution is a political entity?
I see SF is still trying to justify his continued posting here. And failing miserably. SF, do yourself a favor and re-exile yourself. As time goes on, you just sound dottier and dottier, just like last time.
Silver Fox just wants to justify that he's picking and choosing which science to believe in, pretending that democracy has a duty to protect people from being offended. Why isn't he taking on cosmology, astrophysics, geology, palaeontology, biochemistry, and nuclear physics as well? All those also go against religious beliefs and the beliefs of the majority. It's just easy to use evolution as a buzzword to attack naturalism, and attack science in general.Taking away the power of scientific explanation means that students aren't being properly informed, and it makes saying Goddidit a hell of a lot easier. It also makes for a great straw man position too: take away the scientific explanation then complain that science doesn't have an explanation. Bravo, you hack!
SF,
Do you know of Christianity and Judaism?
1 Kings 7: 23
Pi= 30/10 = 3. If you take the bible literally then pi is exactly 3,
"Evolution is exactly as "godless" as physics, chemistry, astronomy, and medicine."
The people in the States in question are taking evolution out of their curriculum and out of their textbooks because it offends their religious belief. They see it as the theoretical musings of the Prince of Darkness, Charles Darwin. It challenges their God. They see it as godless. They don't give a rat's ass as to how you see it. They are being successful because they are handling it as a political issue. Evangelicalism is the fastest growing movement in America. The snowball is rolling. There is no groundswell of support in the defense of evolution.
You want an explanation as to what is happening. There it is. Don't write and trash me. These are not my beliefs. They are the political and religious realities that you and I are going to have to live with for sometime to come. There is nothing we can do about it. To believe otherwise is wishful thinking.
Josh:
"Are you trying to imply that evolution is a political entity?"
Good grief! Am I speaking Portuguese. No, evolution is a science issue. The people making decisions as to whether evolution is taught in school or if it appears in textbooks ARE POLITICAL ENTITIES. These political entities are responding to the view of their constituencies which see evolution as a bogus science which challenges their religious belief in God. They are successful because they are many and they are committed.
American Religious Identification Survey
*** the proportion of the population that can be classified as Christian has declined from eighty-six in 1990 to seventy-seven percent in 2001;
***The greatest increase in absolute as well as in percentage terms has been among those adults who do not subscribe to any religious identification; their number has more than doubled from 14.3 million in 1990 to 29.4 million in 2001; their proportion has grown from just eight percent of the total in 1990 to over fourteen percent in 2001
_ _ _
With the George W. going and Obama coming in as well things don't look great for evangelicals.
The Dover trial also seems to show that there is plenty of support for evolution.
#343
Oh, there is plenty that we can do about it. It's a matter of education, community outreach, and politics. There are citizens for science groups and organizations that promote separation of church and state. There are pro-science candidates to support, from the local school boards to national offices. Even within the ranks of American evangelicals, there can be major ideology shifts, like the "creation care" movement that flies in the face of Jerry Falwell's AGW denialism. Aside from the scientific arena, where the antievolution crowd never stood a chance to begin with, court cases have gone in our favor time and again. To do nothing is the worst kind of negligence.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious, did you steal that one off Vox Day too?
Silver Fox, If the school boards are smart, they let the pros, ie the teachers and administrators do their thing, and just make sure the money is there to do it, and that they are meeting state/accreditation agency requirements. But then, too many elected officials overreach. Like any school board member who tries to change the curriculum by fiat. That causes problems, as Kitzmiller v. Dover pointed out. The Dover school district had to pay over $1,000,000 in legal fees to the lawyers for the other side. Very bad use of public funds. Prudence with public money suggests that they stick to the overall budget issues, and let the teachers do their job.
Josh:
"these boards of education are NOT arguing that flat earth theory be taught as an alternative to Plate Tectonics."
Of course not, flat earth is not popular with their constituencies. There's no political advantage to supporting that. Unlike flat earth, evolution is offensive to the prevailing view of their constituencies' religion.
in other words: "it's ok to lie to your children, as long it's a popular lie"
you're pathetic, and if people like you get their way, we'll end up right back in the Dark Ages. Science education should be dictated by the newest scientific research, not by the fevered delusions of scared people. not everything is up for vote, not even in a democracy
Fey:
"If you take the bible literally then pi is exactly 3"
If you take the Bible literally, then you don't know the first thing about the Bible. The Bible, particularly the Old Testament where the Book of Kings is located, is a compendium of books from old manuscripts taken from oral traditions, containing redactions of old Babylonian myths and Assyrian folklore.
Do you know a lot of people who take the Bible literally? I don't. The Bible? You want to talk about straw men?
Please don't write back and talk to me about the parting of the Red Sea when 144,000 men not counting woman, children and animals crossed over. If they left the east coast of Egypt ten abreast it would have taken them seven days and they would have stretched 150 miles into Egypt. Where is the historical record?
Uh, Silver Fox? Yeah, I just spoke to my Grandmother - apparently she already knows how to suck eggs.
So you wouldn't mind teaching holocaust denial as long as the majority deem it appropriate to teach?Truthiness in schools, it's the Silver Fox way! Nevermind it violates the separation of church and state, 50.00001% demand it therefore it must be done!
SF,
Agreed.
Agreed.
Gallup:
"About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word."
So one third of the population in the richest, most militarily powerful nation on Earth believe the Bible is literally true. Maybe you don't know any of them, but they exist.
Oh, and the people who believe the Bible to be literal truth make up a substantial portion of the group you mentioned: those who oppose teaching evolution.
A large minority of Christians would think that by saying so you don't know the first thing about the bible. Though personally I agree with you, just saying...
"** the proportion of the population that can be classified as Christian has declined from eighty-six in 1990 to seventy-seven percent in 2001"
77% Christians in 2001!! More than three out of every four. Jews believe in God; Muslims believe in God; Mormons believe in God. When you add those percentages what do you have? Probably 86% theist, since only 14% don't identify with any religion. The shift within Christianity has been toward evangelicalism; there's a shift in Christianity toward Islam.
So, where is the groundswell support for evolution? Atheists, Jews and the more sophisticated levels of Christianity
You have learn to separate ethnicity from religion. There are plenty of Jews who are also atheists.
"Why on earth should we think it's appropriate for these same schools to teach some American version of life "science" which misrepresents modern biology?"
Because evolution, not all of modern biology, offends the religious beliefs of the parents, and they have the numbers and political clout to see to it that what offends their religious beliefs are not taught.
So you would agree that holocaust denial be taught, or the holocaust not touched if the majority of people in a constituency felt it offensive on religious grounds?
"So you wouldn't mind teaching holocaust denial as long as the majority deem it appropriate to teach?"
It wouldn't make any difference what I "mind" or don't mind. If it became an issue to a significant number of people, what would be taught would depend on how it played out politically.
Which is the difference between you and us. You're happy to have the US become a nation of morons, ignorant and dismissive of science; we aren't.
"So one third of the population in the richest, most militarily powerful nation on Earth believe the Bible is literally true. Maybe you don't know any of them, but they exist."
No, I don't know them and frankly that is my good fortune.
But, I will tell you this. That third of the population is probably the most vociferous bunch trying to trash your efforts to teach evolution in school and put it in textbooks.
We're just extending your argument to things other than evolution and seeing whether you still think it should apply. It's to check whether you are consistent or simply attacking evolution.
"So you would agree that holocaust denial be taught, or the holocaust not touched"
It would not make a bit of difference what I agreed/disagreed, should be taught/not taught, denied/accepted, touched/not touched.
If the teaching of the holocaust became an issue for a significant number of people, what would be taught or not touched would depend on how it played out politically. It would probably not depend on the truest, most accurate, most correct version of the holocaust.
"Which is the difference between you and us."
No, the difference between you and me is you don't mind banging your head against a wall and bleeding knowing full well that it will accomplish nothing; I believe you have to know what you can change and not change; not dream the impossible dream; suck dry tits, or whatever other metaphors you want to use for futility.
and this is exactly why some countries simply outlaw some forms of dangerous lies *sigh*
Mob-rule supporting idiots like Silver Fox make me think that the purposeful spreading of blatant misinformation should be a felony
SF should end up in a place where everything he thought was true was outlawed by a "majority".
At least he's consistent. Completely disagree with where he is coming from, though I guess it's hardly a surprise. The way we bend over backwards to not only protect bronze-aged myths but hinder progress in order to do so is going to be the downfall of our enlightenment society. And for what? So that people like Max Verret can have not only their children but the children of others exposed to a 2nd-rate education system that is guaranteed never to offend anyone. This is why things like science aren't subject to the rule of the ignorant majority, pi should never equal 3 because the majority is uncomfortable with irrational numbers. This is why it's so important to speak up for a secular democracy, for the social contract, and the importance of giving children the best possible education we can. That teachers will teach the current edge of current knowledge and not fail in their duty of care for the children. It's important for society itself as preserved knowledge has been minimised and destroyed by religious fanaticism time and time again throughout history, and in this case the preserved knowledge is directly related to the prosperity of our society. It's important to speak up for what is right and be honest with information for moral reasons too - lying or concealing facts for the sake of ideology is still lying. Majority rules? We can justify anything tyrannous under that statement.
@ Kel
Wasn't Jesus put to death by an angry mob? That's "majority rules" right there.
"Mob-rule supporting idiots like Silver Fox make me think that the purposeful spreading of blatant misinformation should be a felony"
You're not listening (or reading correctly). Evolution does not conflict with my theistic view at all. You can teach evolution until you drop as far as I'm concerned.
What you don't seem to understand it that those people opposing the teaching of evolution are convinced that you should be charged with a felony for spreading blatant misinformation; you think they should be.
That argument is not going anywhere. Over time it will play out politically; exactly how, neither you nor I know. If you wish to criticize me for keeping my dog out of that fight, go for it.
"SF should end up in a place where everything he thought was true was outlawed by a "majority"."
I wouldn't be in that place very long.
then all you are doing on here is pointing out the obvious.
Silver Fox, If the school boards are smart...."
The school boards are smart that's why they're good at being political pimps.
@Silver Fox
"The school boards are smart that's why they're good at being political pimps."
You have a very strange definition of intelligence, my friend. Would that mean Bush was a genius as well?
"can have not only their children but the children of others exposed to a 2nd-rate education system"
My children all went to private schools where they received a first rate education and were taught evolution as part of modern biology. The public schools available to them were simply not good enough for them or for me. They had no difficulty is college. You see, the private schools couldn't give a rat's ass as to what was being hashed out politically in the public schools.
"You have a very strange definition of intelligence, my friend. Would that mean Bush was a genius as well?"
There's a big difference between being smart and being a genius. None of them are geniuses but they have a kind of cunning, craftiness, street smart about them. That would probably pass as intelligence.
@Silver Fox
"None of them are geniuses but they have a kind of cunning, craftiness, street smart about them. That would probably pass as intelligence."
It's the sort of smarts despots like Marcos and several other politicians I have here back at home have. Everybody here wants them dead btw.
Fox, you wrote:
Yes, it did appear to me that you were writing in another language, because writing Pi is not a political entity is not the same thing as writing:
No, Pi is an issue of mathematics. The people making decisions as to whether Pi is taught in school or if it appears in textbooks ARE POLITICAL ENTITIES. These political entities are responding to the view of their constituencies which see Pi as bogus mathematics which challenges their religious belief in God. They are successful because they are many and they are committed.
nor does Pi is not a political entity imply the above in my opinion.
Fox:
We're in agreement as to the facts of the situations. Where we appear to differ is in our response.
Fox:
Again, you and I appear to be in agreement on the basic observations regarding the situation. But it seems from your comments that you don't have any problem with the fact that this situation exists.
Fox:
Do you really think that we believe our head-banging is definitely going to accomplish nothing? Seriously?
That argument is not going anywhere. Over time it will play out politically; exactly how, neither you nor I know. If you wish to criticize me for keeping my dog out of that fight, go for it. - Silver Fox
I most certainly do. In a political struggle between truth and lies, you've declared neutrality. You cowardly little shit.
Goats:
"In a political struggle between truth and lies, you've declared neutrality. You cowardly little shit."
Neutrality? On what?
I'm not neutral on teaching evolution as part of modern biology. I'm all for it.
I'm opposed, not neutral, to banging my head against a wall in a cause that is going to be settled by history.
Truth or lies? your truths are their lies; your lies are their truth. See where the head banging comes in?
Of course saying that has no merit beyond a rhetorical value. The subjectivism of an individual does not equate to equal worth of an expressed opinion.
Tbe decision has already been made, and history isn't part of it. The creobots are wrong.
SF, why are you posting here? Did you recently retire?
Truth or lies? your truths are their lies; your lies are their truth. See where the head banging comes in? - Silver Fox
No. Their lies are lies. Truth is not subjective.
And so "we" should, figuratively, stay home, and let "them" show up and decide which way history goes? Not bloody likely.
Again, we're not going to sit back and let them force their mythology into our science classrooms unopposed.
"The decision has already been made, and history isn't part of it. The creobots are wrong."
Oh, the decision has been made and the creobots are wrong?
Now explain to a bonehead like me exactly what that means to a kid sitting in a public school in which teaching evolution has been banned and the pages torn out of his textbook.
You see to one of my limited intelligence it would seem to mean nothing. The decision history is going to make is that the kid should be taught evolution because it is part of modern biology. But in the here and now, he is not going to be taught it. For him, that's the decision that has been made. The creobots being right or wrong doesn't mean duck squat for him.
"The subjectivism of an individual does not equate to equal worth of an expressed opinion."
The Intelligent Design folks are in complete agreement with that statement.
Where has that happened SF? Where has evolution been banned?
Goat:
"No. Their lies are lies. Truth is not subjective."
The Intelligent Design folks are in complete agreement with that statement. They would look you right in the eye and tell you that evolution, natural selection, etc. are figments of the creative imagination of one old loony named Charles Darwin and his goofy toady followers have taken his silly ideas and run with them. They would tell you that any one with an ounce of sense can see that this creation is the product of an Intelligent Designer.
Do you still not see where the head banging comes in as far as the public schools are involved?
Silver Fox, what are you doing here? I see nothing but negativity coming from you. What is your goal with your argument? Are you being a concern troll, making like you are one of us, but really working for the other side?
"Worse, though, is the fact that members of the school board are buying into this nonsense. They want to stuff creationism into the curriculum, somehow" P.Z. Myers on the Brunswick N.C. issue.
Also, try Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas among others.
Teach both: Translation - stuff creation in, ease evolution out. Or at least teach both on equal footing. Isn't that cute. You see, evolution doesn't have to be banned outright, but you can teach it as "theory" or as an "alternative view". Get the point?
Nerd:
"I see nothing but negativity coming from you."
I am extremely positive. I am absolutely certain that History will sort it out. Its these "true believers" on both sides who want to "goose" history along that kind of gets in the way. If somehow these folks could move off the edges, it would help. I don't think that's going to happen. So, history will just have to plod along.
I am absolutely certain that History will sort it out.
But this is history. Right now. "History" is not some kind of force acting on us. History is a description, in retrospect, of the amalgamated results of individuals' actions (or failures to act). We choose to fight the lies and the self-serving relativism you espouse.
In your sense of "History" as some kind of intentional force, what you say is utterly vacuous: what won't History "sort out"?
SF, if you feel history will sort this out, you have nothing further to offer to the argument. Time to bow out of this thread.
So, Silver Fox, are you saying that we should stop worrying and let the Creationists and their political allies continue wrecking the educational system of the United States in their efforts to turn this country into a theocratic dictatorship?
and they're welcome to try, on account of I'm have reality on my side; see Dover.
aaah, now I get it. Those poor suckers not able to afford private education just don't concern you. If they don't get a good education, it's just less workplace competition for your kids, right? Fully understandable: you're an egoistic asshole
*sigh* sorry for the rapid-fire posts, I should have made this into one, but I've got one more thing:
and how exactly do you think "history" settles these things? not because people complacently sit and wait for change. all things that have ever been "settled by history" involved people getting angry and fighting for the cause, even if sometimes that meant running headlong into a wall a few times at first.
The most annoying comment by SF was the whole "banging your head against a brick wall/sucking a dry tit" speech. ie despite SF agreeing Creationism is wrong, creationists in the US education system are just too powerful to fight so why bother.
Can you imagine SF ancestors in history.
"Gen Washington. Don't fight against the British- they are too powerful"
"Dr King, the white majority are never going to accept equality for black people"
"Galileo, the Vatican will never admit the Earth goes round the sun"
"Mrs Pankhurst, men will never give you the vote, go home"
"Gandi. Don't fight against the British- they are too powerful"
Huh- well consider "some chicken, some neck"
ahh the eye, what a shitty piece of design that is. I love that it's become an icon for creationists, it's a perfect example of either an incompetent designer or design through natural selection. The bat's sonar on the other hand...
Twin-skies wrote:
I thought Jesus was arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to death by the authority of the day. The angry mob may have influenced the decisions in one or more of those steps, but - IIRC - they certainly didn't 'put him to death'.
However, IANA Christian, and it's been a while since I've read anything about what is alleged to have occurred.
Mark Chapter 15, Re: mob justice and the crucifixion