Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scott Adams +1 Insightful More

Scott Adams +1 Insightful

Comments Filter:
  • had a comment that I really liked:

    A) Everything that exists (from galaxies so big that it takes 10,000 years for light to get from one side to the other, down to all of the quarks, kibbles & goobers that those galaxies are made of), was spontaneously created out of nothing, all by itself, for no reason - and then 800 quadzillion years later evolved things like iguanas and cantaloupes and comic strip writers.

    B) SOMETHING with SOME kind of intelligence purposely drew up the blueprints for all of that.

  • that the Creationists ARE the Intelligent Design people. Any ID proponent who says otherwise is lying.

    The voters in Dover, PA had it right. Put discussion of the supernatural in religion class, where it belongs.

    • that the Creationists ARE the Intelligent Design people.

      That's false.

      Any ID proponent who says otherwise is lying.

      You're ignorant.

      Really, very much so.
      • Well, the ID guys are conscious of Supreme Court rulings that say that they can't admit that they have a religious motivation to oppose evolution, so of course they don't admit it. But I will challenge you this way: find me a legitimate (by ID standards) proponent of ID who legitimately opposes (as opposed to simply claiming not to explicitly espouse) creationism.

        It's like medical marijuana. 99.99% of proponents favor legal pot, or at least decriminalization - but they don't want to admit it, so they say

        • Well, the ID guys are conscious of Supreme Court rulings that say that they can't admit that they have a religious motivation to oppose evolution, so of course they don't admit it.

          No, actually, most of them do admit a religious motivation, but leave religion out of what is proposed to be taught in schools. They do not leave *philosophy* out of what is to be taught in schools, of course. Just because the philosophy involves the proposition of a God-like figure doesn't mean it is religious. (And this is pa
      • Heh, I actually thought he was more-or-less right, and I more-or-less am an ID proponent.
    • that the Creationists ARE the Intelligent Design people.

      No, they're not.

      I'm a Creationist. I believe that God created the Universe. I believe in the Six Day Creation depiction found in Genesis.

      I'm not going to explain it. You get it or you don't.
      • Do you favor teaching of your belief (which you acknowledge as a religious belief: I'm not going to explain it. You get it or you don't.) in science classes in public schools?

        And, more importantly, in the absence of legal authority to include it, would you support intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?

        • More important question: Should the local community (in this case, Kansas) decide what to teach their children in public schools?

          Shouldn't it be up to the parents to decide what to teach their kids?

          In other words: Since I don't live in Kansas, why should I care what they teach in Kansas schools with regard to evolution or ID? Why should you?

          • I care because the nation's competitiveness depends on its kids getting a decent education. Religion disguised as science does not qualify.
            • Overall, I'm against teaching theology as science in ANY school, public or private. Keep them separate.

              But your argument is bogus. There are many parochial/religious private schools which include more than a little 'faith' in their education. I'd like to point out that the majority of these students complete a 4 year degree -- and many go beyond that. Far more than the average public school graduate which receives no education in theology/faith. And some of these parochial schools (I can think of 2 sch
              • There's nothing wrong with teaching theology. In fact, a knowledge of religion (one's own, and others) is vital to the understanding of history and current events. We don't disagree on this at all.

                Where I have a big problem with the ID/Creation/"gaps in the fossil record" people is when they pretend it's science, or rather redefine science to reflect these beliefs. By misrepresenting science (similarly to how "abstinence only" types misrepresent well-established public health knowledge) they do their st

                • Where I have a big problem with the ID/Creation/"gaps in the fossil record" people is when they pretend it's science, or rather redefine science to reflect these beliefs. By misrepresenting science (similarly to how "abstinence only" types misrepresent well-established public health knowledge) they do their students an enormous disservice.

                  So do those who pretend that science proves there was no design. (a few schools)

                  So do those who ignore a child's psyche in favor of statist social policy. (many schools)

            • Nobody's stopping you from offering a free education to anyone in the country you want, and nobody's stopping them from accepting it, except perhaps their parents. But then, in that case, you should be able to achieve your ends by educating them once they become adults.

        • Do you favor teaching of your belief (which you acknowledge as a religious belief: I'm not going to explain it. You get it or you don't.) in science classes in public schools?

          What -I- believe is not a matter up for discussion, though RailGunner brings up a good point.

          As long as the basics (Reading, Writing, 'Rithmatic) are given to acceptable levels, anything else should be left to the people themselves what gets taught in their schools. For example, some schools I've been in require foreign language stud
          • It's not something that will make any difference in the Real World.

            Tell that to the hiring manager who has to deal with graduates without a reasonable science education - and who can choose instead to outsource the work to a place where they do take education seriously.

            • Give specific examples, please. None of the jobs I've had so far (and I've been in the work force for more than 20 years) have required that I know evolution or ID. Some of the jobs I've held were in service, military, and IT.
            • Tell that to the hiring manager who has to deal with graduates without a reasonable science education - and who can choose instead to outsource the work to a place where they do take education seriously.

              Fine, but what's that got to do with YOU, unless you have a vote in East Gish, Kansas?

              There was a time when self-governance meant something in this country ... you don't like it. Fine, you don't have to. It's got nothing to do with you, and you have not a thing to say about what they do. If the school dis
              • unless you have a vote in East Gish, Kansas?

                But I do have a vote in Kansas. It's called the US Constitution. As long as there is an Establishment Clause, and my representatives don't vote to overturn it, it applies nationwide.

                Don't forget that Kansas voters have a vote in California, too. The Commerce Clause backing regulation of marijuana by the Controlled Substances Act is the law in CA, despite being clearly opposed by the voters here (see Prop 215). It's part of what you get in a federal republic

                • But I do have a vote in Kansas.

                  No, you do not.

                  It's called the US Constitution. As long as there is an Establishment Clause, and my representatives don't vote to overturn it, it applies nationwide.

                  That's not a vote, that's a law.

                  And there's no violation of the Establishment Clause here, as nothing in the Establishment Clause ever stated, nor implied, that government institutions must be totally religion-free. It was the opposite intent, that politics stay out of religion, not the other way around.

                  And more i
                  • I love it.

                    science (or philosophy)

                    How about instead:

                    science

                    What is so wrong with teaching philosophy in, I dunno, philosophy class? That's where I learned it.

                    • Interesting...

                      You don't consider science to fall under philosophy?

                      Isn't that like not considering a dog to be a mammal?
                    • Yes, that's my main problem with how science is taught: in a vacuum. Without the philosophical underpinnings so that people can actually put it into context. So we don't have so many "scientists" coming along thinking outrageously ridiculous things like "science proves there is no Design."

                      Every human endeavor is based on philosophy: language, politics, math, science, whatever. None of it exists without philosophy. But more than any of it, science relies on philosophy. I know some would think it relies
                    • Philosophy: From the latin Philia Sophia or Love of Wisdom. Not Indicium Sophia.

                      I've pointed out before [slashdot.org] that there is a problem that people have with science in assuming it is the same as "truth" or "fact". It's not. Many people seem to hold the Indicium Sophia view of world... and their misunderstood 'god' is science.

                  • Also (Score:2)

                    by sulli ( 195030 )
                    there's no violation of the Establishment Clause here, as nothing in the Establishment Clause ever stated, nor implied, that government institutions must be totally religion-free.

                    I think we just disagree on the role of the Establishment Clause. I agree with current USSC precedent and established law that does separate church and state, and that bars the government from establishing religion via the public schools. You don't.

                    Religion is not defined as "the mere recognition that there may be a higher pow

                    • Re:Also (Score:2)

                      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
                      I think we just disagree on the role of the Establishment Clause. I agree with current USSC precedent and established law that does separate church and state

                      I was talking specifically about the law as originally intended. Current interpretation obviously and clearly diverges from the original intent, and does so in a way that inevitably leads to a State Religion.

                      and that bars the government from establishing religion via the public schools. You don't.

                      That is entirely inaccurate. The problem is that you in
        • And, more importantly, in the absence of legal authority to include it, would you support intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?

          Of course, that assumes ID is an *alternative* to evolution, which is not always true. For some people it is, for many (like Meyers), it is not. Unless you mean "evolution as an explanation for the Big Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything," which as you and I agreed the last time, it is not and cannot be. That, for me and many others, is where ID comes in.

          U
        • As a Creationist, I don't care for ID, 'E'volution, or even creationism to be taught in science classes in public schools. I can see any of them taught in a potential philosophy class, but none of those are science.

          See, for all the yack of scientists that 'E'volution is fact, it is not repeatable, period, nor is ID or creationism. As such, it is not science, it is philisophical guesswork. Those are all answers to the "why" question at the root, not the "how" as they might appear on the surface.

          Now on the
          • Why the 'E' with evolution? Is there some sort of coded message there?
            • Little e-evolution is the theory that species can evolve, even though it has not been observed. It is theoretically possible. Big e-evolution is the idea that some random magic happened to create life out of non-life. As I said, I don't see a problem with 'e'volution being taught in schools, 'E'volution though is as faith based as any religion.
              • Evolution has been observed repeatedly in the lab and the environment. Why do you claim otherwise?
                • Life has been created repeatedly in the lab? Or did you (deliberately?) conflate his two definitions?
                  • No, species have evolved in the lab. The claim of the grandparent:

                    Little e-evolution is the theory that species can evolve, even though it has not been observed. It is theoretically possible.

                    is incorrect.

                    • Since the whole point of his post was to define two alleged "types" of "evolution" distinguished by capitalization, you could've helped by clarifying that's the one you meant. I realize proper English grammar required the capital E at the beginning of your sentence, but that leads one to believe you're talking about the other.

          • Personally I think schools should be scaled back to math, science, reading, writing, and civics/history. There is no reason we need to teach sex ed., phys ed., shop, home ec., music, and a dozen other electives.

            I more or less agree, however I would argue that music is important enough to be taught in schools, especially considering how close music can be to math at times, and that music can help develop skills such as pattern recognition in children. Physical Education is also important, as proper exercis

            • I am in favor of drastically scaling back science and math. Ninety percent of public school education should be literature and history. Mandatory math should stop after basic geometry and algebra. Mandatory science is only necessary up through the very basics of each discipline (chemistry, physics, biology).

              The rest is simply not necessary to be a functioning member of society. Forget music and art too.

              Now, advanced studies in math and science should be readily available, but as electives, in addition t
              • I can see your point on the basics of sciences (as far as biology, chemisty, physics) as the goal of high school ought to be to establish a baseline education for a person to be able to function in society.

                But math... I have to disagree. Everything in the physical world can be modeled and understood better with math, whether it's music (and why scales consist of the notes they do, and what harmonics are, and what dissonance is), chemistry, physics, or even economics, math is critical.

                I'd honestly like t

                • Everything in the physical world can be modeled and understood better with math

                  So what? I don't use anything beyond alegbra, and I am a full-time computer programmer. It's not about what is good, it is about what is necessary to be a functioning and participating citizen who can understand the world around him and have the tools to learn what he needs.

                  I am not opposed to teaching more advanced math and science. I am opposed to neglecting more important things in favor of math and science. Math and scien

              • Mandatory math should stop after basic geometry and algebra.

                Too bad they can't even teach that all the time. There are so many people coming out of the public education system today without the ability to do simple math without the help of a calculator, if at all.. nor able to read, that it's scary.

                One thing they should add, which we did at my school (thanks again Mom and Dad for sacrificing and sending me to private school) is to learn basics about handling money as well. Budgeting, paying bills, etc. I

                • Too bad they can't even teach that all the time. There are so many people coming out of the public education system today without the ability to do simple math without the help of a calculator, if at all.. nor able to read, that it's scary.

                  No kidding. And that's part of the point. If there's more focus on what matters most, then the students are more likely to excel at those things.

            • OK Kids, today we're going to play wiffle ball because we're too afraid to hand out aluminum bats

              <G> In my day, it was bowling pins. In the fifth grade I got a black eye and stiches (and got to leave school for a day!!) from being hit in the fact with a wooden bowling pin during a P.E. activity. I kid you not. Never saw any P.E. activities involving bowling pins other than bowling after that.
        • My take on this whole argument is that two separate classes should be established with parents choosing which class their children attend. I rank evolution as much of a religious belief as creation or "I.D.": it takes interpretation of data based upon one's prime belief, that there is or is not a God and a great deal of faith that one is correct, no matter what one chooses to believe. The sum of all human knowledge wouldn't fit into a thimble compared to the vastness of what we do not know. So let parent
          • Timex's wife posts here too?!? Simpley amazing. I thought I was the only one who's wife read/posted on slashdot!

            • My wife reads; I think I have yet to convince her to post, although when she recently learned from me that she could alter the comment display defaults with an account, she may have signed up for one.

              But, hey, it took CmdrTaco several years to get his girlfriend to post. Meanwhile, my wife edits Wikipedia, so I think I'm pretty lucky.

          • Regardless of the fact that this is as simple a solution as anyone can come up with

            Oh, there's a much simpler solution, and our Founders pursued it: http://www.sepschool.org/ [sepschool.org] :)

            it is more about power than children.

            Very true, and very insightful.

            The power to state "I am right" and force children to learn the "facts" as one sees them, rather than give parents the right to oversee their children's education and let them learn one view, the other, or both.

            Yep. It's a conflict between a believe

            • Actually, according to Massachusetts state law, they do indeed have the authority to approve or disapprove my choice. By the law of the state I live in, I have to provide the local school district with four things: 1)The curricula I intend to follow and my plan for implementing it. 2)My qualifications as an instructor of my children. 3)My schedule for teaching (current legislation requires 900 hours per year at the elementary level). 4)My plan for evaluating the children's progress.

              If I refuse to provide t

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Close