Utah Votes 'No' to Darwin's Critics 792
NewbieV writes "An article in Tuesday's New York Times notes that proposed legislation which would have 'stress[ed] that not all scientists agree on which theory regarding the origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race, is correct;' has failed by a 46-28 vote in a Republican-controlled state House of Representatives."
Re:Evolution/IEducation (Score:3, Insightful)
Just sitting here over the last few months and seeing the appalling ignorance of so many, right down to not even understanding what science is, it seems to me that education's first role, particularly in those post-Industrial world, is to give a good grounding in science, because, believe it or not, incredulity from ignorance is meaningless.
Re:Utah of all places! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:saints preserve us (Score:3, Insightful)
"How do you feel about having your child instructed in what's 'true' by a [Mormon/Muslim/Catholic/Protestant/Jew/Satanist] teacher?"
Smart religious people obviously would want their religion taught to their kids by their church, not by a public school. It's really only people who irrationally assume that the public school would be teaching just their religion and no one else's that are in favor of stuff like this.
Much like how people who irrationally think that their favorite political party will always be in power are in favor of unlimited government power.
Please Stop Posting These (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really not a great idea to post these evolution debate storys. This story will generate a huge amount of comments as the creationists try and blast the boards with their nonsense. And I do not hesitate to call it that. Nonsense. Mod points will be burned, flames will fly, karma will be gained and lost again and again in the same comment.
The creationists are essentially trolls, who are given free reign in these sanctioned stories to start flame wars. I have no doubt that many creantionist comments simply are trolls, looking to start a nice hot flame war. They succeed every time.
It's all a waste. Slashdot is news for nerds. This is really a US centric debate, and quite a lot of the slashdot readership is simply not in any way interested in the current US culture war. Many find it completely perplexing, like a story you'd hear about people somewhere worshipping a kid with a tail. This creation thing is not really a science story and is more a (very US centric) culture and politics issue.
OK. I accept that in some cases, these evolution stories are quite relevant in a science context. But only when the evolution/creation "debate" is not itself core and main extent the story. Postings on the NASA PR's censoring of scientists I do want to hear about. That affected scientists, and was only a result of the evolution/creation "debate". Similarly with fuding cuts due to fallout from the issue.
But stories like these, which are not about science, and are simply about another aspect of a culture/political war going on in the US, do not belong in the science section. There's no science here. There isn't even a victory for science. It's just the outcome of one skirmish between religious groups and secular people in the US.
I accept that this may be an important issue for US slashdotters, but please understand that this is a very, very, very US centric story, that really belongs in the Slashdot politics section, not in the science section and certainly not on the main page.
Hopefully this comment might start a good meta discussion that the editors may take notice of. But more than likely it will simply be lost amid the vast torrent of comments, flames and threads surrounding it.
True Science Vs. True Religion (Score:2, Insightful)
1- False religion in the face of true science.
2- False science in the face of true religion.
3- False religion in the face of false science.
True science and true religion have the same end goal, the pursuit of truth. They just have different methodologies to go about finding truth.
Re:Utah of all places! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish (Score:3, Insightful)
Something tells me he has no problems teaching kids "facts" based solely on open interpretation of 3000+ year old texts, though.
=Smidge=
Re:Evolution/IEducation (Score:1, Insightful)
While this is a key thing to teach in science education, alas, teaching children to question conventional wisdom is not a component of "intelligent design".
Instead what "intelligent design" does is teach new conventional wisdom. The creationist "teach the controversy" strategy wears a lamb's cloak of critical thinking, but rather than encouraging critical thinking itself, it strives to just barrage students with false factoids, ranging from misrepresentations of probability theory to just bizarre junk like claiming the sun is shrinking very quickly. Students aren't being encouraged to think here, they're being taught. And the things they're being taught are scientifically vacuous and usually factually inaccurate garbage, which is being promoted for the one and sole reason that it disagrees with conventional scientific wisdom.
In the end teaching alternate scientific viewpoints is only a valid option where alternate valid scientific viewpoints exist.
Critical thinking is encouraged by teaching and encouraging critical thinking, encouraging children to ask questions and pick at contradictions they perceive. It isn't encouraged by telling children "Okay, among the science we teach you we're going to throw a bunch of randomly selected stuff that is almost certainly wrong. It's your job to figure out what's right and what's disinformation!"
Re:Evolution/IEducation (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with using Wikipedia for definitions. Facts, ya, that can be a problem but definitions are fine. The whole point of having a term defined is so that everyone can agree on it's meaning. So when I posted the definition of evolution, I was referring to the accepted meaning of the term. If it means something else to you then that's OK, but you should assume that the definition accurately describes what it means to other people. If you want to argue about the definition, provide references.
Thus the complaint still stands- evolution and thories like it are proof by consensus, which is a logical fallacy
Every single accepted theory is a proof by consensus because nothing can ever be proven correct for certain. Will gravity stop working tomorrow? Possibly. Who really knows. We have models that have been shown to be very accurate at predicting the future but we can't assume they always will be. A good theory can be proven false quite easily, but can never be proven correct. Only after years of tests by multiple scientists where the data always fits with the theory can a theory actually be accepted by the scientific community. Note that it is never proven, just accepted by consensus.
Willy
Re:About Foe lists... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Religious Rotgut (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been tested. It's been observed. You're either in denial or ignorent.
You see, there is every bit the agenda on the part of evolutionists to take God out of society. I don't want to put God into society, just to let people decide for themselves.
I disagree. I think you do want to put God into society, and you have an agenda to force people to accept that God exists. To prove my theory, I will simple ask you that were you to have children, or if you already have had children, will you/have you instructed them religiously? If the answer is yes then you are a prosyletist.
The point is to stop teaching evolution as a fact, and not to teach complex theories to children who don't know what to do with them.
People around the world try and teach children the mysteries of transubstatiation, or ressurection, or eternity or some other such rubbish. These are, at the best of times, highly advanced intellectual concepts. Children should not be taught these complex theories as they don't know what to do with them. Plus, they aren't even fact, unlike evolution.
The attempts by many Christians to teach ID and creation are not intended to shun science or make second-class citizens out of atheists; it's just a reaction to what many view as being an untruthful, specifically anti-Christian approach.
Yes they are. And atheists are second class citizens. Unlike their religious "peers", their views and practices, no matter how outrageous, are not constitutionally protected. The Christain approach is the untruthful one. The religion is filled with lies, contridictions, falsehoods, evils and hate; yet to proslyetise and indoctrinate it is legally protected.
The truth is, you've been brainwashed by the village shamen or nearest cultural equivilant. Try not to subject your children to the same treatment. You only get so many of them.
Your signature is interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
“Moral relativism” is a redundant term. All morals are intrinsically relative to the people, times, and places from which they originate. Thousands of years ago, it used to be that stoning women to death for getting raped was moral, while today, that is no longer the case. It also used to be moral to have slaves, but that too was based on whether you lived in the north or the south. People define morality, not absolutes. And because people are transient, morals will come and go, and evolve.
Also, it is funny that you say “moral relativism” eliminates definitions of morality. You used the plural form of “definition” thus indicating you think that there are multiple definitions of morality in the first place. I could not agree more.
Re:Utah of all places! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:saints preserve us (Score:3, Insightful)
And I agree, GP is definitely flamebait. And remarkably stupid.
There have been lots of very smart people who have held religious beliefs. There are also lots of very smart people who aren't religious, but who hold other irrational beliefs. I daresay you won't find a single human anywhere who doesn't have at least some kind of irrational beliefs or behavior patterns. Unless GP poster is a nihilist who rejects calling anyone at all "smart", it's hard to argue that singling out one group is anything but Flamebait.
Re:Enough Tolerance (Score:2, Insightful)
There seems to be confusion here over what a 'theory' is. Just because it's a theory doesn't mean that it's correct. It means that it is the best answer that we have been able to come up with to explain something. The biggest key to any theory is that it must be dis-provable. This is where ID fails to fall into the realm of science whereas evolution does. You want to disprove evolution? Easy - go find the fossillized remains of a human in the Jurrasic. You want to disprove ID? Impossible, unless you can get the almighty to appear before me and tell me personally that he didn't do it or maybe some alien species that has been recording our past.
Easy question (Score:4, Insightful)
Because most people are stupid?
What do I win?
Smartass comments aside, I think it's because there's just too much knowledge. It's painful trying to understand complex ideas, and the world is full of complex ideas. It's much simpler to embrace a simple viewpoint, one which will give you the answers you seek without requiring thought.
Consider simple moral questions. In the real world, moral judgements are sometimes difficult. By embracing a set of pre-written moral standards and applying them uncritically, life becomes much easier. "Homosexuality is wrong," and "Anyone who claims to believe in Jesus is right," or "The invisible hand of the market will make everything right!" Shades of grey are transformed instantly into wonderful black-and-white just by running it through your Jesus filter (or your Allah filter, or your Ayn Rand filter, or... you get the point).
I doubt we'll ever see a true age of enlightenment.
Re:I'm not really surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a moral responsibility not to force your beliefs down your own childs throat.
I think I have a moral responsibility to give my child the benefit of something that has done so much good for my life, and the lives of so many others I know.
Re:Utah of all places! (Score:3, Insightful)
"Some say that Mormonism, with its emphasis that all beings can progress toward higher planes of existence, before and after death, has a receptivity toward evolutionary thought that other religions might lack."
I'd guess that religions related to Hinduism would also have some evolutionary leanings, then.
Re:Butt-ars? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok sir but even if you won't go, just let us take her to sunday school, it's only a few hours.
How fucking sinister does that sound?
C.