I am the very model of a modern inter-netizen
I frequent digg and slashdot just like any savvy citizen
I've earned my stripes and now can gripe as well as any denizen...
But now I'm set, we're at the Met, and trolling in real life, my friend!
But now he's set, we're at the Met, and trolling in real life, my friend!
But now he's set, we're at the Met, and trolling in real life, my friend!
But now he's set, we're at the Met, and trolling in real life, my friend, my friend!

Why in the hell would I want to search for a number with no context? Who thinks that way? Everyone remembers the concept, not the number.

You say "3.14" and people know it as pi. But if you said "pi," people would say "3.14." This example is only interesting because it's widespread.

Nobody would start with "58.44" and say "Hmmm, what does that symbolize?" No. They need to know the molecular weight of sodium chloride, and so they'll search Google for "molecular weight sodium chloride" and turn up the number 58.44. We're not computers, we know semantic context, and need numbers. Not the other way around.

Though I guess this sort of thing might be useful for some sort of numerical AI, who has numbers but no semantic context. Time to don the tinfoil hats, fellows.

And the public school system is going to teach every little perfect child how to think critically, and "for themselves," because they're all little perfect blank sheets that can be folded and shaped into little perfect academic origami. Right. As I said before - no one comes into this world free of bias and free of influence. You can't retrain someone who's been brought up not to think for themselves, to do so, at least not without a lot of specific, individualized help that the education system doesn't have the resources to provide.

Now, on to your "rote memorization" issue that I didn't even bring up. So, you think it's okay that 40% of Americans or whatever can't locate Iraq on a map, because it's all right, they can just look it up on Wikipedia? What if they need that information right away? Maybe it's something more relevant, like "what are the three necessary elements to produce fire?"

Especially in real-time debates like ID/Creationism/Evolution, it does matter that you can remember something that can be looked up. If you don't, you end up looking like an idiot, even if you aren't.

Whether you like it or not, rote memorization sharpens the mind. Rote memorization provides basic tools and understanding that can be used to craft what you call "truth." Frankly, I'm really glad my teachers drilled my multiplication tables into me. Makes my life a lot easier. I'm glad I memorized all the words I know, so that I understand what I'm reading without a dictionary. I'm glad that I memorized historical and mythological events, because when I'm listening to someone speak or reading their work, I don't have to run to a library or a computer every five seconds to get the backstory required to understand symbolism or allegory.

I've heard this "you don't need to know things that you can look up" before, and frankly, I think it's a crock. It's something that applies only at the upper echelons of academia and research, where there's just too much information to bother memorizing, and the time spent memorizing doesn't end up saving you time down the road.

When you're in any sort of high-pressure situation, memorization is what stays with you. It's the brain's version of "muscle memory." And seeing as we live in a high-speed, high-pressure, high-information density world, it's important that we have reliable, instantaneous access to information. Having facts, figures, and general knowledge memorized lubricates communication, and really, makes our world function.

Critical thinking flows out of this information. How can you think critically if you don't have pieces of information to put together? Some people make the connections, some people don't.

Again, if you figure out some magical way to impart critical thinking skills to people, let the education system know about it right away. I'm guessing, though, that there are already armies of developmental psychologists working on that very issue.

I don't know about you, but, in my experience, the differences in theology between most denominations are incredibly insignificant. I mean, yes, the Catholics have seven sacraments, they allow for saintly intercession; while the Protestants generally have two, and don't do saints, etc. But beyond a few mechanical details, it basically comes down to the same message - One God-As-Three, Jesus is a part of that, believe in Jesus' power to save you and your life/afterlife will be better. You can go read the various Books of Catechism for the various denominations, but that isn't going to give you a whole lot of insight.

I consider someone well-versed theologically if they've read a good deal of the Bible (and maybe some of the apocrypha or the Catholic texts) - not just the pull-quotes. Because if you can recognize Scripture (and its context) when it's quoted to you, it's very, very easy to pick up the theological bent of the speaker, and thus be exposed to and understand a broad range of theology. Knowing the "range of Christian theology" and the "history of the Church" without knowing the source material is pretty useless.

I'd agree with you though. Most militant atheists know jack shit about Christianity. Most of them aren't even well-indoctrinated in one form of Christianity - they're just as bad as the Creationists, spewing decontextualized verse after decontextualized verse.

Of course, most militant atheists are whiny, angry teenagers, so what are we to expect?

-1 Evangelist should be a mod. Though I guess the slashdot troupe probably assumes it fits under "-1 Troll"

If you make ID testable, suddenly, it's not ID anymore. So if you were still calling it ID, that's your problem.

But then what would the idiots do with their lives?

How many people never learn to think critically? Do you honestly think that they never learn critical thinking because they get "facts" too early? That the problem with the world is people being exposed to bias "before they can handle it"?

People are exposed to bias and half-truth the instant they comprehend a few words coming out of their parents mouths. Bias is everywhere, and there's nothing you can do to escape it. If you want to criticize the school system for not encouraging critical thinking enough, fine. But don't suggest halfwitted, draconian measures where we refuse to teach anything of true substance to children until "they can handle it."

Also, geography? What the fuck is biased about geography? We have maps and satellites. Are you afraid of introducing bias in children because the Israelis and Palestinians can't decide who the West Bank belongs to?

Look, having a class that involves defending those tenets would involve actual discussion, not having screaming matches on message boards. The internet is in no way a functional analogue to academic debate, and the take-home message from these assignments seems to be "become an internet and/or IRL troll" - become the type of person who yells at passersby from street corners, or post in all caps about who's going to hell.

That definition of trolling is a bit narrow. Yes, not holding the opinions you're stating can be a form of trolling, but I think the key part is "intent to rile up."

Even if you believe what you're saying, you ARE trolling if you seek out hostile audiences for your unpopular opinions with the sole purpose of riling them up. I think the question here is "are these people trying to rile others up?" Because I'm guessing, coming from some Baptist degree mill, that they think their tripe will actually change people's minds.

Still, I think they're trolls. Ignorantia juris non excusat applies in matters of the law, it stands to reason it should prevail on the internet as well.

All right - propose a test for the hypothesis that there was an intelligent force that initiated the universe. When you figure it out, you can post again.

Evolution does not posit any information about "the beginning of time." It doesn't say "this is a random set of events." It simply explains observations of continuities between species and DNA across millions/billions of years.

Parents would have an easier time if more of them did their jobs. No disrespect to your parenting skills, personally - I have no idea how you parent your children, and won't pretend to - but "parents cannot win" because most of them suck at their job or refuse to do it, and have persistently cried to the government or third-parties that "it's hard" and to "do it for them." So even the good parents can't win.

Parental controls DO affect people who don't use them. What the fuck do you think the FCC is? The ESRB? The MPAA Ratings Board? That shit is, in essence, "parental controls." They say what gets sold or shown where.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think these organizations shouldn't exist. But they overstep their bounds all the time, and yes, I'm going to blame overprotective, whiny parents just as much as I'm going to blame puritanical religious zealots or stodgy politicians or whoever else is busting down freedom of expression.

Pure FUD. Someone mod this down.

Yeah, except proteins aren't made out of nucleic acids, don't have a double helix structure, follow virtually none of the same rules as polypeptides... you get the picture.

DNA is in an entirely different section of the Central Dogma from proteins. Folding@Home doesn't really apply, especially because Folding@Home is designed primarily for determining quaternary structure (the real "folding" part of proteins), which these things can't even develop.

Also, Folding@Home is not the first of its kind. It's part of a long tradition of molecular visualization that started shortly after the computer was invented, though the ideas were born with quantum mechanics. Blame Schroedinger, really.

You can probably model these systems ab initio, given a single computer with a buff enough processor and a nice GPU or two - and maybe a few hours of computer time. You don't need supercomputing or distributed processing.

Got it in one.

You people are fucking parrots. The real solution is for Google to give people the option of disabling their retarded new tab page, as they should have from Day One.