Texas school board is full of morons.

[Humodour]

Heh, what would the next step be... a Chinese style firewall to protect Texas against the damaging influences from the rest of the world?!?

 

Mr Rudd, you are a stain on Australia.

[Humodour]

The reason get a lot of flak if they go too far in pushing creationism (or push it at all, for that matter) is because you have to be a complete and utter idiot to literally believe the bible creation story. It's not because "education is skewed to the left," it's because education is supposed to be teaching kids, to the best of our ability, truth. Anyone with half a brain knows that the bible creation story (or its renamed counterpart, "Intelligent Design") is scientific bull****. The only reason creationists get any recognition at all is because they tend to be very loud and obnoxious, and enjoy pushing their nonsensical beliefs on people who are actually interesting in learning how the world works.

 

 

That's a bit harsh, I think.

 

The truth is harsh.

 

People who honestly believe that god created the world and all the animals exactly how they are and nothing in the natural world changes by means of evolution have no right to be on a board of education. Ever. In order to have that belief, you have to actively disregard a *very* large chunk of well-established scientific knowledge.

 

Damn straight. It sickens me that 200 years after Darwin there are still pockets of the apparently 'civilised' world where idiocracy is the primary means of governing a policy-making body.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Nothing wrong with bringing a little balance, education has been skewed to the left for like forever. If someone goes too far in pushing creationism, etc, they tend to lose elections, even in conservative districts. I suspect Dunbar may be in trouble in the next election over Jefferson.

 

The reason get a lot of flak if they go too far in pushing creationism (or push it at all, for that matter) is because you have to be a complete and utter idiot to literally believe the bible creation story. It's not because "education is skewed to the left," it's because education is supposed to be teaching kids, to the best of our ability, truth. Anyone with half a brain knows that the bible creation story (or its renamed counterpart, "Intelligent Design") is scientific bull****. The only reason creationists get any recognition at all is because they tend to be very loud and obnoxious, and enjoy pushing their nonsensical beliefs on people who are actually interesting in learning how the world works.

You either missed my point, or just spewing things at random. In the latter case, there's no need to quote me.

[Oblarg]

Nothing wrong with bringing a little balance, education has been skewed to the left for like forever. If someone goes too far in pushing creationism, etc, they tend to lose elections, even in conservative districts. I suspect Dunbar may be in trouble in the next election over Jefferson.

 

The reason get a lot of flak if they go too far in pushing creationism (or push it at all, for that matter) is because you have to be a complete and utter idiot to literally believe the bible creation story. It's not because "education is skewed to the left," it's because education is supposed to be teaching kids, to the best of our ability, truth. Anyone with half a brain knows that the bible creation story (or its renamed counterpart, "Intelligent Design") is scientific bull****. The only reason creationists get any recognition at all is because they tend to be very loud and obnoxious, and enjoy pushing their nonsensical beliefs on people who are actually interesting in learning how the world works.

You either missed my point, or just spewing things at random. In the latter case, there's no need to quote me.

 

Or you didn't word your post particularly well. I answered what I read, whether it was what you intended to say or not.

[Tigranes]

You know, we could just teach science in science classes... and teach religion in religion classes (or, in churches).

 

you have to be a complete and utter idiot to literally believe the bible creation story.

 

Or, you know, they choose to prioritise their faith in religion more than their trust in science.

[Guard Dog]

The reason get a lot of flak if they go too far in pushing creationism (or push it at all, for that matter) is because you have to be a complete and utter idiot to literally believe the bible creation story. It's not because "education is skewed to the left," it's because education is supposed to be teaching kids, to the best of our ability, truth. Anyone with half a brain knows that the bible creation story (or its renamed counterpart, "Intelligent Design") is scientific bull****. The only reason creationists get any recognition at all is because they tend to be very loud and obnoxious, and enjoy pushing their nonsensical beliefs on people who are actually interesting in learning how the world works.

 

 

That's a bit harsh, I think.

 

The truth is harsh.

 

People who honestly believe that god created the world and all the animals exactly how they are and nothing in the natural world changes by means of evolution have no right to be on a board of education. Ever. In order to have that belief, you have to actively disregard a *very* large chunk of well-established scientific knowledge.

 

Ummm, you do realize intelligent design is not incompatible with evolution right? There is a great book out there, Signature in the Cell that lays out all of the scientific evidence supporting the principle of irreducible complexity, the basis for the theory. It is beyond refute at this point that complex bio-machines (cells, life, etc) evolve and that humans and apes did have common anscestors but evolutionary theory has no answer for the jump from single cell organisims to more complex life. There is no evolutionary map there. ID is just a theory that explains the gap. It, like Darwinisim is just a theory that does have some merit and has been neither fully proven or disproven. Personally I do not see how it is harmful to present it as such, just as darwinisim is, in school. Denying children access to knowledge just because you don't like the potential ramifications if the theory is eventually proven correct is every bit has despicable as putting John Scopes on trial for teaching evolution back when it was not widely accepted. Funny how that shoe is on the other foot now isn't it? And if ID is ever proven incorrect, what was the harm of presenting it as a theory? None.

 

But we are digressing here. The dispute in Texas was over history, not ID. Reply if you wish but I'm dropping it here.

[Oblarg]

The reason get a lot of flak if they go too far in pushing creationism (or push it at all, for that matter) is because you have to be a complete and utter idiot to literally believe the bible creation story. It's not because "education is skewed to the left," it's because education is supposed to be teaching kids, to the best of our ability, truth. Anyone with half a brain knows that the bible creation story (or its renamed counterpart, "Intelligent Design") is scientific bull****. The only reason creationists get any recognition at all is because they tend to be very loud and obnoxious, and enjoy pushing their nonsensical beliefs on people who are actually interesting in learning how the world works.

 

 

That's a bit harsh, I think.

 

The truth is harsh.

 

People who honestly believe that god created the world and all the animals exactly how they are and nothing in the natural world changes by means of evolution have no right to be on a board of education. Ever. In order to have that belief, you have to actively disregard a *very* large chunk of well-established scientific knowledge.

 

Ummm, you do realize intelligent design is not incompatible with evolution right? There is a great book out there, Signature in the Cell that lays out all of the scientific evidence supporting the principle of irreducible complexity, the basis for the theory. It is beyond refute at this point that complex bio-machines (cells, life, etc) evolve and that humans and apes did have common anscestors but evolutionary theory has no answer for the jump from single cell organisims to more complex life. There is no evolutionary map there. ID is just a theory that explains the gap. It, like Darwinisim is just a theory that does have some merit and has been neither fully proven or disproven. Personally I do not see how it is harmful to present it as such, just as darwinisim is, in school. Denying children access to knowledge just because you don't like the potential ramifications if the theory is eventually proven correct is every bit has despicable as putting John Scopes on trial for teaching evolution back when it was not widely accepted. Funny how that shoe is on the other foot now isn't it? And if ID is ever proven incorrect, what was the harm of presenting it as a theory? None.

 

But we are digressing here. The dispute in Texas was over history, not ID. Reply if you wish but I'm dropping it here.

 

Irreducible complexity has been debunked over and over again.

 

The "we don't know everything yet, therefore God did it" argument is not at all compelling. Try again.

 

Also, "darwinism" is not a word. We don't "believe" in evolution because Darwin said it, we "believe" in it (and it's not really a belief so much as a logical conclusion) because all the evidence points towards it.

 

Oh, and you don't know what a theory is. Even if irreducible complexity had any legitimate evidence (it doesn't), it doesn't make intelligent design (read: creationism) a valid theory, because it doesn't support that conclusion so much as it contradicts another. And anyone who says something is "just a theory" obviously didn't pay attention in science class (or maybe science class doesn't teach science anymore). Intelligent design is not knowledge, it's faith. Faith does not belong in science classrooms. A theory is a testable explanation for an observable phenomenon, and intelligent design by definition fails to meet those criteria because you cannot test it. It does not belong in science classrooms, and people who think it does have no place on a board of education.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Oblarg

[Pop]

This means very little to quality teachers.

On the contrary, teachers are often required to teach in line with their books, especially when state standardized tests are tailored around the textbook. Rookie teachers tend to do it even if they aren't required. And given that Texas buys its books in bulk for the entire state and is, as far as I know, the largest single purchaser of textbooks in the US market, what they require in their textbooks ends up the standard in textbooks all across the country. Which is why this is a big deal instead of just another example of Texas being retarded (see ex. 1 and 2.) Market forces at work, etc.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Pop

[Deadly_Nightshade]

[Hiro Protagonist]

I have confidence and reliability in Logic and Reason and the Laws of the Universe. I don't need to believe in something like religion that has obviously been man made such as the Church of Scientology created by L Ron Hubbard and Christianity and Islam which have also been created by man.

[Slowtrain]

The reason get a lot of flak if they go too far in pushing creationism (or push it at all, for that matter) is because you have to be a complete and utter idiot to literally believe the bible creation story. It's not because "education is skewed to the left," it's because education is supposed to be teaching kids, to the best of our ability, truth. Anyone with half a brain knows that the bible creation story (or its renamed counterpart, "Intelligent Design") is scientific bull****. The only reason creationists get any recognition at all is because they tend to be very loud and obnoxious, and enjoy pushing their nonsensical beliefs on people who are actually interesting in learning how the world works.

 

 

That's a bit harsh, I think.

 

The truth is harsh.

 

People who honestly believe that god created the world and all the animals exactly how they are and nothing in the natural world changes by means of evolution have no right to be on a board of education. Ever. In order to have that belief, you have to actively disregard a *very* large chunk of well-established scientific knowledge.

 

 

Faith is always going to be a part of human existance. To try to stamp it out is silly and a waste of time.

 

Especially in cases where "truth" is unknowable, faith is pretty much as good as science when it comes to offering up explanations and possiblities.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Intelligent Design is fine as philosophy, it's just not science.

[Hurlshort]

You know, we could just teach science in science classes... and teach religion in religion classes (or, in churches).

 

Actually I teach religion in Social Science (which is a fancy term for History.)

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Intelligent Design is fine as philosophy, it's just not science.

 

Sure, but it needs to stay in the realm of philosophy and not try to pass itself off as science (although I would say that there is some flaws in the philosophy as well).

[Calax]

You know, we could just teach science in science classes... and teach religion in religion classes (or, in churches).

 

Actually I teach religion in Social Science (which is a fancy term for History.)

If you don't mind my asking Hurl, how closely do you have to teach to your text?

[Orogun01]

Intelligent Design is fine as philosophy, it's just not science.

 

Sure, but it needs to stay in the realm of philosophy and not try to pass itself off as science (although I would say that there is some flaws in the philosophy as well).

Well it can't pass as a science since its mostly dismissed by every academia, which are not even willing to accept it as a thesis. This is still a religious idea; but I find the blatant disregard of scientist who choose to pursue it a little more than biased. As it was done when Darwin's ideas where on the defending side, I bring up the term agnostic; a position that Darwin himself took. You can't prove or disprove the existence of a Supreme being, in the same way that every proof that exist supporting evolution could be thrown out by a skeleton out of place and time. Aside from math there is no exact science, so I truly don't understand why are people so smug about their own ignorance.

[Oblarg]

The reason get a lot of flak if they go too far in pushing creationism (or push it at all, for that matter) is because you have to be a complete and utter idiot to literally believe the bible creation story. It's not because "education is skewed to the left," it's because education is supposed to be teaching kids, to the best of our ability, truth. Anyone with half a brain knows that the bible creation story (or its renamed counterpart, "Intelligent Design") is scientific bull****. The only reason creationists get any recognition at all is because they tend to be very loud and obnoxious, and enjoy pushing their nonsensical beliefs on people who are actually interesting in learning how the world works.

 

 

That's a bit harsh, I think.

 

The truth is harsh.

 

People who honestly believe that god created the world and all the animals exactly how they are and nothing in the natural world changes by means of evolution have no right to be on a board of education. Ever. In order to have that belief, you have to actively disregard a *very* large chunk of well-established scientific knowledge.

 

 

Faith is always going to be a part of human existance. To try to stamp it out is silly and a waste of time.

 

Especially in cases where "truth" is unknowable, faith is pretty much as good as science when it comes to offering up explanations and possiblities.

 

I'd say in those cases "truth" is irrelevant anyway.

[Volourn]

Evolution and creationism are not neccessary at odds anyways. Evolution - the theory that states that lifeforms adapat to their surroundings to make their surviveability more likely - can exist where a God 'created' the world/universe/whatever. *shrug* they aren't neccessarily.

 

I'm not super religious anything, but I think the delusional believe that the universe came to be out of nothing (big bang theory) is poppy**** and has more holes in it than religion does. To create something out of nothing is completely garbage.

[Pidesco]

FANTASTIC.

[Calax]

Faith is always going to be a part of human existance. To try to stamp it out is silly and a waste of time.

 

Especially in cases where "truth" is unknowable, faith is pretty much as good as science when it comes to offering up explanations and possiblities.

No... no it's not... saying "A wizard did it!" has about as much veracity as saying "god did it". Science is based around observing the current world and figuring out what makes everything tick. God and their like are by definition unknowable and thus you can't apply the scientific method to its existence and thus cannot be considered a part of science.

 

ID is a theory that doesn't fly (and has been proven not to in court at the dover trial), at least in terms of science, because at it's basis it's saying "science is because of a designer (re:god)" and doesn't actually demonstrate any science. Irreducible Complexity was handled at dover too in that the best representation was proven to be false. Ultimately the biggest "proof" put foreward for ID was that "this world is so perfectly tuned to human life that there HAS to be a designer for life! the odds are to stacked the that it's impossible!" And for the most part this isn't correct. As if variables were changed human life would shift in a different evolutionary tract. And even with we go with the odds, think about it like a deck of cards, Pull out the first you have a 1/52 chance of getting that card, pull out the second, the chance of those two cards is (1/52)(1/51). By the time you put out the entire deck of cards its 1/ (52*51*50*... 2*1) which means that the chance of getting that particular set of cards is impossibly high, and by the proponents reckoning an act of a deity or outside force. But the fact is you just got it, and obviously possible.

[Tigranes]

No... no it's not... saying "A wizard did it!" has about as much veracity as saying "god did it". Science is based around observing the current world and figuring out what makes everything tick. God and their like are by definition unknowable and thus you can't apply the scientific method to its existence and thus cannot be considered a part of science.

 

Agreed, for the most part. Science is science because it is based on the assumption that the scientific method is a valid way to understand the universe. I wonder, though. Every field of knowledge, every method, eventually realises its limitations, puts its hands up and say 'we're great at this, but we're not so great at finding this kind of stuff out'. That's why you know, we can't use psychology for everything, or contemporary humanities methods of qualitative research, or pure logical analysis for everything.

 

I'm not very aware on science or its principles, I don't lean that way. So on the fine points of ID v. evolution I have no idea. But just speaking from a very broad and abstract view... is it really out of the question at some point, some scientists might say 'traditional scientific method is inadequate / not the best for this particular question, and we believe one leaves that particular area up to spiritual forms of investigation'? I don't think so. I am not saying this is/will be the case with ID, or this might necessarily happen. I'm saying, though, science is not the be-all & end-all, and it's my impression a lot of scientists know that. The scientific method is just one of many methods we currently use to make sense of the world. It's not so outlandish to me that in some areas that method may not be recognised as the most useful - it already isn't, in some.

 

Yes, yes, I'm trying to blatantly break down this foreclosure we have on 'science' again. But I do think it's worthwhile. Again, it doesn't mean something as stupid as "but the world, it has God! and spirits! we can't explain that with your science! Hah!"..

[Junai]

I'm not super religious anything, but I think the delusional believe that the universe came to be out of nothing (big bang theory) is poppy**** and has more holes in it than religion does. To create something out of nothing is completely garbage.

 

About as mystical as a single sperm turning into a big babbling Volo..

 

J.

[Guard Dog]

Ultimately the biggest "proof" put foreward for ID was that "this world is so perfectly tuned to human life that there HAS to be a designer for life!

 

Actually you're just a little off on this one point. The rest was correct. ID is based on the lack of evidence of an evolutionary path from single cell to complex organisims. As Oblarg correctly pointed out it is a "God in the Gaps" argument that presumes there is no such a path, not that it is just unknown. The idea that complex life was seeded here by aliens also explains the "missing link". Still I really don't see the issue with presenting the idea as an unproven hypothosis with the caveat that it is a hypothesis. Natual Selection does fine explaining the progession of life over hundreds of generations, but it is mute on the origin of compex life.

 

I have to say I find the hostility on this board to the idea to be pretty remakable. By the tone of his posts I'd say Oblarg was foaming at the mouth and slapping his keyboard in his anxiety to get his words out. Others too. You know, 100 years ago you could be thrown in prision for teaching Natual Selection (look up the Scopes Monkey trial). 300 years ago they would excecute you for it. In Iran they still would. By the sound of most of you I think you would be in favor of similar treatment to anyone who presents an alternative idea like ID. Like I said, it's funny how the shoe is on the other foot now.

[Guest The Architect]

I think the origin of human life, at least, has some connection to mushrooms. And I'm not joking.

[Gorgon]

Ultimately the biggest "proof" put foreward for ID was that "this world is so perfectly tuned to human life that there HAS to be a designer for life!

 

Actually you're just a little off on this one point. The rest was correct. ID is based on the lack of evidence of an evolutionary path from single cell to complex organisims. As Oblarg correctly pointed out it is a "God in the Gaps" argument that presumes there is no such a path, not that it is just unknown. The idea that complex life was seeded here by aliens also explains the "missing link". Still I really don't see the issue with presenting the idea as an unproven hypothosis with the caveat that it is a hypothesis. Natual Selection does fine explaining the progession of life over hundreds of generations, but it is mute on the origin of compex life.

 

I have to say I find the hostility on this board to the idea to be pretty remakable. By the tone of his posts I'd say Oblarg was foaming at the mouth and slapping his keyboard in his anxiety to get his words out. Others too. You know, 100 years ago you could be thrown in prision for teaching Natual Selection (look up the Scopes Monkey trial). 300 years ago they would excecute you for it. In Iran they still would. By the sound of most of you I think you would be in favor of similar treatment to anyone who presents an alternative idea like ID. Like I said, it's funny how the shoe is on the other foot now.

The point is still that creationism is not science, and yet it has been shoehorned into the science curriculum. There is good reason to be foaming at the mouth. If learning has to be the whipping boy for political agendas you lot are really in trouble.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Gorgon