Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional 3360
An anonymous reader writes "MSNBC reports that a judge in Atlanta, GA has ruled that a sticker placed on all textbooks in Cobb County stating that 'Evolution is a theory, not a fact,' is unconstitutional, and ordered that all stickers be removed."
Thank God! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank God! (Score:4, Interesting)
Furthermore, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, only the ways in which it has changed since it began. I have never heard a remotely plausible theory regarding the origin of life. People have not yet been able to create anything nearly as complex as a machine which can produce more of itself outside of laboratory conditions, and the idea that such machines just "happened" accidentally is far-fetched at best.
Don't get me wrong here - the notion that some all-seeing, all-knowing invisible superhero created life so that it could be fawned over is even more absurd. But just because we can't figure out how it started doesn't mean we should accept "it just happened by accident". Did VCRs also spontaneously arise out of the primordial soup? A VCR is a far far simpler device than a self-reproducing automaton...
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Insightful)
I do think kids should learn the difference between a theory and a fact. It should be a normal part of the curriculum, when the word is first introduced, it should be properly defined with a good explanation of why scientists rely on some theories so much that they seem to be facts.
The word "theory" gets used too much as a synonym for hypothesis, fact, and wild speculation that I'm not surprised people get confused. Considering how much this word is used and misused, a proper lesson can be designed without any religous message that clarifies both religous and nonreligous discussions.
Evolution: both theory and fact (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Evolution: both theory and fact (Score:5, Interesting)
No. "Things fall down" is a fact - an observed phenomenon. "Things fall down because there's a force called gravity that causes an attractive force between any two masses" is a theory.
As for the sticker, "evolution" means "species change over time". This has been observed, so it is a fact. "Theory of Evolution", on the other hand, says that "All species on Earth were born from a common ancestor through evolution", which may be true, partially true ("some, but not all, species developed from a common ancestor through evolution") or completely false. Therefore, it is not a fact.
It should also be noted that one of the reasons that the Theory of Evolution gained so much support was simply a counterreaction to the centuries of oppression by religion and the then-fashionable atheism; scientists, being humans, aren't any more immune to letting fashion influence their thinking than anyone else. It was fashionable to deny the existence of God, and the authority of church, so any theory that would allow people to do so seemed inherently better than it's merits might have allowed.
Re:Evolution: both theory and fact (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you must be stupid or blind.
Why not drop evolution from the sticker completely. Just "This book should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." It could be stamped on EVERY book. Including religious ones.
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Insightful)
The text of the message: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." contains no endorsement or condemnation of any religion, religious belief, or religious practice. The statement itself cannot be deemed a violation of the required separation of church and state. Had the statement actually endorsed a creationist idea, the case would be very different.
The statement was added because of the compliants of the parents of the students who will be using those books. This behavior isn't unheard of--it happens every year with regards to sex ed and other "touchy" subjects that parents' children study in school. It's important that it wasn't the pastors, rabbis, or TV evangelists who pressured the school board, it was the parents. The sticker was a direct result of the desires of the actual members of that school district, not any religion or religious organization. Parents are totally within their rights to argue with the school board, regardless of their religion.
The judge in this case ruled the stickers unconstitutional because of the religion of the people who supported it. "Bah," you may say. But think about it. The judge took up against the "religious" side because the issue is sometimes a point of religious conflict. This is exactly the sort of behavior the constitution prohibits.
If you still don't see anything wrong with this picture, it's because you don't understand the meaning or purpose behind the separation of church and state. This amendment to the constitution was put in place forbid the government from oppressing any individual because of his religion. It is by considering atheism "yet another valid religious belief" that this religious protection is extended to them as well. And since athiesm is just another religion, it must be protected, but it cannot be favored. All religious beliefs, even the ones that don't call themselves "religious", must be given equal rights.
What's wrong with this case is that it's an example of a judge ruling for a religion (the atheists), and not because there was anything wrong with the stickers. They neither promoted nor condemned any religion--or lack thereof. They only questioned a scientific principle. And it's not unconstitutional to question a principle--no matter how wrong you may be. Rather, the judge ruled against the "religious" because of their religion. The ruling was made as if the judge believed atheism to be the official religion of the state, to be promoted at the expense of others.
If you're an athiest, you probably still don't see anything wrong with it. So how about this:
Let's say that instead the issue at hand is a geography book, written by Christians, that said that Saudi Arabia is an ugly place that the world could do without. Some local Muslims take offsense and get the school board to put a sticker on the book that says, "This book contains some statements about the value of certain locations that are based solely on the authors own taste, and which should be approached with an open mind."
In such a case, can a judge declare those stickers unconstitutional because they tend to support an idea which some Muslims see as a religious issue. The issue at stake isn't whether Saudi Arabia really is ugly or not. Likewise, the previous arguement isn't really about evolution. It's about the government taking sides on an issue just because a religion supports or opposes it.
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Insightful)
And while you can quibble over the definition of "religion", I would say that atheism pretty well qualifies. It just doesn't have a formal organisation, and it's only tenet is that there is no god.
If you were to form some sort of organizied "church" for it it would indeed be tax exempt yada yada yada. Sure some people will scream and yell about it, but I have little doubt you can win in court.
And acknowleding that atheist belief is a religious belief is actually quite usefull in these chuch-and-state arguments. Prohibiting the government from meddling in religion, prohibiting the government from sticking god into the pledge, prohibiting the government from putting god on money, none of that is "making the government atheist" as they love to claim. Requiring the government to remain entirely silent on the issue of god is in no way promoting atheism. The government is just as prohibited from promoting the belief that there is not god as it is prohibited from promoting the belief in a god.
Taking "in god we trust" off of money is not athesist. Placing "trust money because there is no god" on money would be atheist. Obviously the "pro-religion" side is going to find the second quote unacceptable, and they are defenseless when you point out the fact that the first quote is no better than the second quote. If it is unacceptable for you to put one religious belief on money then it is equally unacceptable for them to put another religious belief on money.
-
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Informative)
American Heritage Dictionary
theory n.
1. A set of statements or principals devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
This is what scientists mean by a theory. Nothing in science is a fact. As more observations are made, theories can change, or new ones are developed.
Evolution Theory is accepted as the best explaination of what has been observed from any number of discipines. The sticker is incorrect in the usage of the word theory and should not be placed in the textbooks.
Should physics textbooks carry a sticker that gravity is just a theory also?
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather there be a whole chapter or two on critical, skeptical thinking. I think that'd be a much better use of all of our time.
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Informative)
Fact: Something that you observe to be true.
fact #1: when you drop a hammer, it falls to the ground
fact #2: a genetic sequence can change sufficiently to form a new species. Speciation has been observed more than once in the laboratory and in the wild, so this is a fact. Since we call this process 'evolution', that means evolution is a fact. Keep reading for more explanation of this.
Theory: An explanation of an observation
Theory #1: The theory of gravity is understood as a curvature in space, which explains why the hammer falls.
Theory #2: The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection explains how a population's genome can change over time.
Law: Not really related to any of the other definitions. It's just a mathematical relationship between two values.
Law #1: If you double the distance from a source of light, the brightness falls off proportionally to the square of the distance.
Law #2: (expressed as a formula) F=ma. Force equals mass times acceleration.
Please note that Evolution is a fact, and the theory is called the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection. There are other theories of evolution, which have been disproved. A famous one is the theory of evolution through acquired characteristics, also known as Lamarkian evolution. It posited that species evolve by acquiring and retaining useful characteristics through use. Therefore, a giraffe would have longer necks if the previous generations stretched their necks to reach high leaves. This was the main theory that Darwin and others showed to be false.
Re:Thank God! (Score:4, Insightful)
We have observed evolution in action. The Bible doesn't mention anything about God creating a bunch of new, drug-resistant bacteria over the past 40 years, does it? The bacteria that survive our antibiotics have certain characteristics and mutations that allow them to survive and breed by natural selection for being fittest to survive in the environment in which they find themselves (our medicated bodies). And they breed like crazy, so their evolution is greatly accelerated compared to what we are used to.
Of course, what little the Bible says about the subject is so abstract that it can twisted to survive scientific enlightenment. This is evolution at work, also. Maybe God created all the animals simply by zapping some amino acids with lightning and let the rest be done by natural selection. Maybe he set it all in motion by creating the big bang so he could just phone in the rest.
Christ was actually quite set against organized religion; he got into his troubles for mocking the orthodoxy and telling people to make their spirituality an individual thing rather than kneeling in pews and chanting by rote. I think Christ would be quite appalled by the religion that carries his name.
While on the subject, the committee that formed the whole of the religious canon of Christianity did so from a narrow selection of letters written by fanatical cult members over three hundred years earlier. Christ's divinity was decided by a (non-unanimous) majority vote of the men present. Much of the body of the Bible was written in letters by a schizophrenic who was born a hundred years after Christ's death.
Religion is one of the better examples of evolution around. They all interbreed and mutate to survive their environment. Stoned any gays lately? Or adulterers?
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Interesting)
Scientists have, however, managed to zap at contained vats of chemicals that could be similar to the soup that was Earth's conditions before life and managed to get some very basic 'things' that could be the precursors to life as we know it. Unfortunately, they don't have millennia to continue to monitor and experiment on these vats of organic chemicals to see what actually happens to them.
I think that it's very plausible that amino acids and proteins, combined with a whole slew of other compounds came together and started to have different chemical reactions that built upon themselves leading to "life". Also, small, simple systems are easily mutated chemically at such a stage, so new variants would crop up in the process of dividing or chemically reacting, continuing the diversification. Over time pieces combine or split and grow in complexity, eventually joining into simple multicellular organisms, then further.
Re:Thank God! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Insightful)
Going by from what I have found in my own research...
Evolution by itself *is* just a theory (a hypothesis with support). We have observed evolution: that is a fact. We have observed speciation by evolution: that is also a fact. We have oodles of historical information which suggests evolution occured, and which would allow for speciation to have occured: that is a fact, too. There is not an overwhelming amount of historical evidence that speciation by evolution *was* the dominant means for the creation of new species; in other words, there aren't colossal numbers of near-identical fossils with only very tiny intermediate changes. We have very few direct observations of any kind of rapid, sudden, severe evolutionm, which might explain historical speciation. It is quite likely that many, many fossils are lost; only a scant numbers of fossils will stay preserved this long. It is also quite likely that evolution happens much more quickly from severe natural disasters (if we see a few new species with much better adaptation of water from the recent tsunami, I will not be surprised).
Creationism by itself is *just* a hypothesis (a suggestion which would become a theory with adequate support). There is historical evidence of many things in the bible being true; however, that does not imply that the biblical story of creationism carries any weight. If someone could come up with data that would suggest that the immediate results of such a creation process are clearly present within the history of the early universe, creationism could qualify as a theory.
You have to be careful with calling something a "fact." There are very few general facts about evolution. One is, "We have observed evolution and speciation by evolution in controlled environments." Another is, "There is overwhelming historical evidence to suggest evolution and speciation have occured." Theories are never facts (except in pure mathematics), but facts can support theories, and theories can be used to design new experiments which will create more relevant facts.
I do not know, off of the top of my head, if the formal definition of evolution is worded like, "Small changes in organisms lead to adaptation to their environment" (implying always), or, "Small changes in organisms could lead to adaptation in their environment" (implying that this is a possibility, but not a requirement). The first is a theory stated as a law, the second is a theory stated as a possible explanation. I'm assuming that, when most people refer to evolution, they refer to the suggestion that evolution, as an explanation, ought to be taken as a law, based on the Wikipedia entry for Evolution, which states, 'The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection. This theory states that all species today are the result of an extensive process of evolution that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and that evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and extant.'
Creationism, as stated in the Bible, is very improbable. An all-powerful God could, of course, spontaneously create a Universe, complete with a history of dinosaurs, and complete with planets shooting away from each other as if there had once been a big bang; this suggests that, if the Universe is really only a few thousand years old, God has a great sense of humor.
However, if the creation story is intended to be a metaphor, then who cares? Comparing known scientific data with a literary metaphor means nothing, because a metaphor is just a literary device used to describe the nature of something else. Of course, some could argue that it is an inaccurate metaphor [vexen.co.uk], because of the way we are interpreting our translation of the original Jewish text.
Re:Thank God! (Score:4, Insightful)
No surprise there. Every new biological discovery seems to be heralded in these magazines as "new proof of evolution" or "evolution at work". Even when other reputable scientists dispute the findings, or even if the proof turns out to only show that a specific test worked, these kinds of headlines show up.
Now that you know what the word "theory" actually means
Theory, the word, actually has multiple meanings - leading to much of the confusion. Take a look at Merriam-Webster. You'll find "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another", "abstract thought : SPECULATION", "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena", "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation", and "an unproved assumption" -- each of which puts a different flavor to the discussion. Notice that NONE of the definitions given implies that a theory is a fact. The closest ones state "plausible or scientifically acceptable" and "hypothesis assumed".
The important definitions of fact are "something that has actual existence" and "an actual occurence". Evolution is an assumed occurence based on the relationships between different life-forms. It doesn't ever point to an actual occurence - it points to two separate facts (actual fossils that can be dated) and infers an occurence between them. The actual occurence is not known - in fact, many books on evolution say "we don't know how this happened, but x evolved into y as you can see by
The key distinction the groups who pushed for those stickers are trying to make is that while many believe evolution "may, for all practical purposes, be treated as a fact", it is not a fact. To their dismay (though they will seldom admit this), this is equally true of their own theories (translate as religious beliefs). To everyone's dismay, this is the case with many things we believe to be fact. Einstein's theories are still just that - theories. Two thousand years from now humanity may learn that they were radically incomplete and our insistence on teaching them as fact prevented us from entering entire fields of knowledge.
==============
As a side note, I think this federal judge - if he actually claimed that the sticker attempted to inject religion into state materials - may have made it easier for this to be appealed. The sticker was written very carefully and makes no mention of religion. Nowhere does it mention the Bible, Christ, Christianity, creation, or anything religious. In fact, if you were to show that sticker to any person who knew nothing about the controversy here and that the opponents of evolution theory are religious, they wouldn't necessarily connect religion. They could suspect a renegade group of scientists. By calling the sticker religious the judge reveals a clear bias and picking of sides rather than an impartial consideration.
Re:Thank God! (Score:4, Funny)
Actually mod it funny due to subject "Thank god!"
-Em
Re:Thank God! (Score:4, Insightful)
There are theories as to its mechanisms. Note I said "theory", not "hypothesis"; in general, a theory is the best you can do when describing a process in science. The common use of 'theory' to mean 'unproven concept' is not the way science uses it.
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition, "monkeys turning into humans" is not evolution. For one, the theory is that humans evolved from apes. Apes aren't monkeys.
Second, the single theory that humans evolved from other primates is not the entirety of macroevolution, much less evolution. Throwing away tons of good science because you don't like the implication of a small portion is bad practice. Instead, try to excise that part in a reasonable fashion.
I've never read a biology textbook that didn't mention that the specific evolutionary paths mentioned therein were theoretical and subject to change. In the meantime, it's the job of the textbook authors to teach the prevailing scientific ideas.
By the way, macroevolution (speciation via evolution) has been observed in a number of cases. Those cases don't prove any other cases, but the process does occur.
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Insightful)
It kind of reminds me of my favorite argument about the "Newton was Wrong" folks: No, he wasn't wrong. His equations were accurate to a certain point. If he had the ability to hurl apples to the ground at velocities comparable to light (and be able to measure the consequences), he would have certainly had the wherewithall to at least state "my basic theory breaks down at absurd velocities for some reason".
Back to the main point: I think it's irresponsible to equate religion and science. The two are literally antitheses of each other. Religion demands adherence without proof. Science demands adherence only with proof.
If things get somewhat heated I am tempted to say "there is no mention in the scriptures stating the Book of Genesis is a scientific paper." I haven't actually done so yet in conversation. I'm still waiting for the opportune moment.
Re:Thank God! (Score:4, Informative)
Not universally. Western religions tend to demand adherence without proof (leaps of faith and such), but Eastern religions (and some Jewish mysticism) tend to be more philosophical and introspective. For example, in Zen Buddhism blindly adhering to written or taught dogma is typically shunned. Instead, the wealth of religious texts in these zen sects are to be taken merely as a "finger pointing to the moon". If you spend too much time looking at the finger, you'll lose sight of the moon.
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Funny)
Now c'mon. Everyone KNOWS kangaroos don't fly. They jumped there. As for the koalas, they didn't fly nor jump-- they haven't got the wings or legs for it. Obviously, they teleported. I saw it once in a cartoon, so it must be true.
Re:Thank God! (Score:4, Insightful)
Best of luck with that mate, I'll be the one screaming "medic!" at the top of my lungs. Modern medicine may just be a theory but I reckon it's statistically a better bet than relying on His strength.
Now, who wants to start a campaign to sticker bibles? Kids should be aware that the contents of that book are just a theory, and a pretty poorly supported one at that...
That's a good call, dude (Score:5, Interesting)
And you'd be absolutely right. In the current conflict in Iraq, the death rate from battle wounds is only 1.6%, whereas in vietnam it was 3.68%, more than twice as high. [army.mil] The army, at least, attributes this huge increase in survivability to modern medical technology and improved practice.
looked at as a ratio of wounded (but survived) to killed, the current ratio is 7.6:1. Going backwards in time, counting only U.S. soldiers:
Vietnam: 2.6:1
WWII: 1.7:1
WWI: 1.8:1
US Civil War: 0.74:1
In other words, a trend consistently shows more people surviving war wounds as time goes on.
Meanwhile, the evidence is not that there has been a massive (factor of twenty) increase in religiosity in the United States since the Civil war. Certainly, available data show that people self-identifying as Christian have decreased significantly between 1990 and 2004.
So the evidence would seem to indicate, unless God has consistently increased his tendency to save the lives of wounded soldiers despite no significant increase in their faith, that improvements in medical technology are in fact a good bet for saving your life when you're lying bleeding on the battlefield.
Good call, mike260.
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, all of these are pretty hard to refute, but if they're all true then evolution has to logically follow.
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone with a clue here at all?
Apparently not you, since you can't distinguish science from religion.
Re:Thank God! (Score:4, Insightful)
As to the sticker, it was nothing but a Fundementalist Christian attempt to foist a truly discredited bit of nonsense upon students. It's a victory for reason over religious mumbo-jumbo.
5 words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, in these forums I see so much religious ignorance that it makes me sick.
I don't agree with the sticker of course, because I believe that what Darwin observed does exist. I don't believe that man originated through evolution, but I believe that God created the earth and the things on it with a certain level of tolerance and adaptability. To do otherwise wouldn't make much sense from a scientific point of view, would it?
Re:5 words... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not talking about the evolutionists, I'm talking about those who don't even want to look at the world God created for clues about how He did it before declaring that they know how the world works because of literalist interpetations of the bible.
Re:5 words... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is because scientists look at the world with an open mind. We don't go out looking for clues about how He did it, because we don't assume anyone did it - if we did assume that, it would not be a useful scientific approach.
The problem with assuming that there are these clues is that almost all the discoveries that were thought to be clues of God's work have turned out to be false, and could be explained far more simply. There comes a point where there is no more room for these clues, as almost everything can be explained - we are very close to that stage with evolution and biology.
Have you heard of the 'God of the Gaps' argument, and why it is flawed?
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, why is it such a horible thing to have an alternate view presented. Do you realy think these children can only handle one view, or that thay are completely incapable of making there own desisions on who they are going to believe. I mean after all, if evolution is so obviously the only possible answer, they shouldn't the evidence be able to speek for itself, why should it be above question and debate?
Surely the sticker should be on ALL textbooks (Score:5, Insightful)
If it is the case why are they not asking for the same stickers to be stuck on EVERY textbook? A fair amount of what is accepted as 'scientific fact' for day to day purposes are is still a theory. And not just the natural sciences with its theories of evolution, relativity, black hole formation but also things like economics and geography textbooks need stickers on them
In fact, now I think about it the same sticker should be on English comprehension textbooks - lets face it we don't really know what Shakespeare was trying to portray a misogynist society in The Taming of The Shrew - seems more likely to me that he was out for a cheap laugh. Much of history is the same.
And obviously, when sticking these stickers on, they need to do the bible at the same time. Something like 'Well the first half of this book is a collection of pan European mythical tales bought together in a nice anthology and the second half was about a dude who was really cool, but we don't like to talk about what he did between ages 18-30 as he may have been being a naughty boy' should be accurate.
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Informative)
Then I'm afraid, to be blunt, that you are essentially ignorant of a vast area of research.
Check out http://talkorigins.org. Let's see how open your mind truly is.
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between science and religion is not that the scientists are supposed to consider every crazy, unsupported idea that comes down the pike.
The difference is that if the leading scientific theory is proven wrong then it is no longer the leading scientific theory.
Only religious types think that a "Belief" is something you have to decide early then never change.
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Insightful)
The verbage specifically states that evolution is not a fact. They don't know that it is not a fact. The sticker is playing games with semantics ("Oh we mean not a fact as in something is either a theory or a fact") but was clearly cleverly written such that it could easily be read as saying "Evolution is false."
Doesn't sound very open minded to me.
As far as I know, no one has actually observed macroevolution.
There have been several instances of observed speciation in plants and insects.
This deserves the [HERO] tag (Score:4, Funny)
Equal time for plano-terrestrialism (Score:4, Funny)
In the name of plano-terrestrialists everywhere, I demand that all globes, maps and atlases include a disclaimer stating that the idea of a round earth is only one of many possible theories.
Furthermore, we demand equal time in the classroom to discuss our alternative theories of geography.
Re:Equal time for plano-terrestrialism (Score:5, Insightful)
Invisible magical blue-scaled lizard midgets. When anybody comes close to the edge, they will magically put them to sleep and run them to the opposite side of the disc in their secret network of extradimensional tunnels. once there, they reposition the person in exactly the same way they were, and wake them up.
Now, this is at least as convincing a theory as ID, with just as much evidence and falsifiability, and deserves all the same repsect and classroom time.
Re:Equal time for plano-terrestrialism (Score:4, Insightful)
Much like gravity, there are theories to describe evolution, and there's also the fact of evolution. Just as the effect of gravity is not in dispute, the process of evolution is not in dispute. There are multiple theories describing gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc., but apples will not stop falling to the earth while we decide which one is the most accurate.
Evolution has been observed, and the evidence in support of it is overwhelming. Modern biologists do not really debate whether evolution occurs or not, but are instead concerned with the mechanisms by which it does occur. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory, which means it is testable, can make predictions etc. In this regard, even scientific theories which are known to be wrong can still be useful. For instance, even though we know that Newton's theory of gravity is inferior to later theories, it is still accurate enough in it's predictions to guide spacecraft to Jupiter and beyond, and is very useful in these areas. So downplaying the importance of a MAJOR SCIENTIFIC theory like evolution is misleading to average people who apparently often have little understanding of how science works.
Creationism, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory. It starts by assuming that there is a creator, and in making such an assumption goes against the fundamental tenets of science. To suggest to our children that this psuedo-science garbage is a worthy alternative to evolution does them an incredible disservice.
Re:Equal time for plano-terrestrialism (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, forgot one:
"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." -- First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23, 26
Here is biblical proof that pi is in fact exactly 3, which should be given equal time in high school math classes.
Re:Equal time for plano-terrestrialism (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Equal time for plano-terrestrialism (Score:4, Informative)
There's a reason why this passage describes who made this.
And BTW for the clueless, you do imagine that someone actually measured this pot right? And recorded what he measured - it's not prophecy after all. The reason these measurements are recorded is that the pot was very think. One measurement was an inner measurement, and the other was an outer measurement.
Do the math, go look up how much a hand breadth is, and figure the inner diameter was 10 cubits minus a hand breadth. Then see how 30 cubits compares with what you calculate for the inner circumference - you'll find it's quite accurate.
Creationist? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Creationist? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that weren't enough, a look at the groups behind the disclaimers should remove all doubt of motive.
Re:Creationist? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that both sides of this debate muddy the waters.
First, it seems that most biology textbooks never claim that their conjectures on the origin of life (not origin of species, which evolution claims) are only conjectures. They also never talk about how, as theories go, evolution (as the origin of species) is pretty weak. It does a decent job at explaining things, but has anyone seen it make a real prediction? Hmm... And some, in their haste to tell "their side," never mention unresolved issues with evolution, such as fossil record biases and the homochirality of certain molecules...
Then, the other side won't entertain any idea that doesn't jive with their interpretation of the Bible. And when they discover an unresolved issue with evolution, they attack it with glee. They escalate the problem up to lawyers and politicians, who generally couldn't tell a proof from a theory from a fact from a conjecture...and you get crap attempts at compromise like the sticker in the front of the book.
Personally, I'd just like to see more intellectual honesty in the textbooks - but too many scientists unfortunately have an agenda as much as the religionists do.
Re:Creationist? (Score:5, Insightful)
People just need to be more honest in general, really. The problem is that science is, by definition, only about theories -- that's just how it works. If we want to be "fair", then every textbook that tries to tackle the history of anything will have to include every single point of view, including swords being dipped into pre-existing seas to form islands. And there's no truly objective way for us to pick just a few and drop the rest of these "theories".
The distinctive factor in science is self-testing. If you find out your theory doesn't fit the facts, then it doesn't fit the facts and you need to start over or adjust. You may come out with some really nasty functions by the end, but so long as they fit the facts (past/present/future,) they're as good as any other theory. We just prefer simpler ones, by custom. Science is about making models that fit the facts, and revising those models when they're obviously wrong (which does depend on observation, which admittedly is a gray area.) Religion doesn't change to match available data points; it simply declares them wrong/invalid/misinterpreted until you can't prove religion wrong.
My brother, my girlfriend, and I went to a baptist church meeting in oklahoma one weekday night to hear a talk to the local congregation about evolution. We'd gotten the flyer, figured it could be fun -- and we were pretty much unemployed with nothing better to do than get free entertainment. The guy was attempting to prove the science was always false because it sometimes changed its mind to fit the facts -- because it couldn't guarantee it was true from the get-go, it was forever wrong. Somehow, that didn't keep him from using pseudo-scientific evidence to prove his other points (about how the T-Rex could never have existed because he would have tripped and killed himself the moment he tried to walk) and asked the congregation to give him money so he could rescue dinosaur skeletons from museums to add to his collection (end purpose unknown.)
Why do we pick current scientific sources only for schools? Because it's the only self-correcting source of theories available. We can even present multiple scientific theories simultaneously in the classroom -- the point isn't that they're different and therefore cover all "beliefs" without offending anyone, but that they're more-or-less equally-valid (though rarely perfect) interpretations of available facts presented within the context of peer review. It's a given that they're all theories -- and that's precisely why they're in textbooks for schools, and religious beliefs aren't. It's a lot like the arguments for open-source: it's not that it's perfect or absolutely true, it's that it's in a context that lets it evolve toward perfection rather than dogmatic dictatorship. Change and uncertainty are good things; we need to be honest about it, yes, absolutely, but we need to recognize a good thing when we see it too.
Re:Creationist? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a "creationist textbook sticker" because Intelligent Design is just a secular telling of creationism. It supposes an intelligent creator which we have no scientific evidence for except circularly ourselves and our surroundings which is at best specious. Secondly, it has a huge flaw with "first cause" since everything must come from something more intelligent so supposedly "The Creator" was created from a more intelligent "Creator" and so forth. Third, it is wrong, because it is easy for us to concieve of cases where we muddle with our DNA to create more intelligent human beings (which I believe to be just a matter of time). This goes directly against the notion of intelligent design where beings can only create things less intelligent.
Evolution is a theory, but there is lots of evidence supporting it. We've observed "micro-evolution." What we haven't observed is "macro-evolution" but I guarantee that we'll know it when we see it. There is of course a problem with "first cause" but we exist so it has to be resolvable.
Evolution is a theory in the sense that relativity is a theory or the theory of an atom. We don't preface the theory of the atom with a sticker and we shouldn't do evolution either. Students should think critically about it, but evolution does not deserve any special doubt just because it happens to disagree with certain religious texts. But, what I'm really tired of is people trying to return us to the dark ages.
Re:Creationist? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, don't take this as disagreement, becuase I agree with you that, while still a theory, evolution is the best one we have to explain the facts in hand and it shouldn't be singled out as particularly suspect, but...
1) Effects have causes
2) No effect can cause itself
3) Every effect, therefore is caused by something other than itself
4) A causal chain cannot stretch back infinitely in time
5) There must, therefore be a First Cause that, itself, had no preceding cause
6) God uniquely answers the cosmological question by being the Uncaused First Cause
7) God, therefore, exists and created all that is.
That logic is valid, so long as we accept two things. First, that they are naming the first cause "God", and second that the underlying assumption is that there is not a causal chain that stretches back infinitely in time.
We cannot deny them their first choice (to call the first cause "God") because it isn't like we have a better name for it. And if we deny them their second assumption, then we are still left with a substantial question:
Why is there something instead of nothing?
If the universe can be said to stretch back infinitely in time, then we should ask why the universe need exist at all. There is still a substantial "Why?" left to explain.
If we follow that train of logic, then God's role is not as initiator of the universe, but as sustainer and creator in a sense that we simply cannot understand. We assume a creation time when we speak of creation, but if the universe stretches back infinitely and God created it, then there is no "When?" question we can ask, but we are left with a timeless, spiritual act of creation that is incomprehensible to me...not incredulous, just incomprehensible.
In short, the Intelligent Design people have not set themselves up to fall quite so easily. While misguided, their argument is not so ridiculous as the media would like it to be...unlike strict Creationists, whose claims are patently ridiculous and disprovable with the scant evidence we already have in hand.
Disclaimer: I am one of those Christians (i.e., most of us) who thinks that evolution seems like a solid theory and doesn't see how it shakes our religious foundation to allow science to do it's job.
Yes, Creationist. (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW, facts are used to confirm a hypothesis and move it to theory status. Just shows that those that came up with the text don't understand science at all.
Re:Creationist? (Score:4, Insightful)
While it has no scientific basis and is incredibly, extremely, stupidly unlikely, it is possible that what we describe as general relativity is actually caused by tiny mystical invisible wooden garden gnomes who wind magical clocks 1/10^50 times smaller than a proton.
General relativity is, however, supported by a breadth of scientific research that confirms trends and common occurrences, and is therefore accepted. However, it cannot be philosophically declared as truly fact.
If tomorrow the speed of light slowed to 5 m/s, and gravity stopped working on compact discs, we would have to reevaluate our best held theories to account for the possibility that general relatively simply happened to fit very well until now. A forthcoming emmissary from the mystical garden gnomes may lend support to an alternate theory.
You may say "But the speed of light won't slow down tomorrow, and compact discs won't stop paying attention to gravity, silly fool!" I would likely agree with you. However, I ask, "How do we know for sure?" Technically, we're working entirely on observations.
My extremely roundabout and probably poorly-worded point is this: We are working entirely on observations in an open system. Science allows us to come up with theories that are "as good as" fact, and may in fact hold true for 100% of our experiments. Those explanations that work consistently are kept, and the inconsistent ones are tossed.
Consider the extremely remote possibility that the world was actually created in 1823 by hyperintelligent shades of the color blue. Consider that history books, dinosaur bones, Prague, and John Quincy Adams are all originated from phenomenally good simulations. Stupidly improbable, and I agree it's an idiotic theory, but hey, you weren't there to know!
The real issue, in my opinion, is an obsession with language. The word "fact," meaning that it is and always will be completely and utterly THE WAY THINGS ARE, is bandied about very freely, when philosophically it almost never applies. "We're 99.99999999999999999999999% confident that it's a fact" would be more appropriate, but I suppose it's considerably more cumbersome to write.
theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
For me this ruling depends on books contents (Score:5, Insightful)
If however the book glosses over all theories as fact then the sticker is innappropriate for singling out evolution and a more general sticker (or preferably a different text) would be appropriate.
If no such glossing over is done then the sticker is innappropriate.
Any science book however should teach that theories are there to be challenged by scientific means. Science's strength is that theories can be improved upon or replaced when a demonstrably better (not merely "alternate") theory eventuates.
Science should be proud of it's theories, proud that they represent accumulated knowledge and proud that science is honest enough to let them go if we get something better (not merely "alternate").
Dear Creationists (Score:5, Funny)
We'll put these stickers on our science textbooks when you put "God's existence is a theory, not a fact" on your bibles.
Re:Dear Creationists (Score:5, Interesting)
Dear Creationists,
We'll put these stickers on our science textbooks when you put "God's existance is an untestable hypothesis that can never rise to the level of validity of a theory. Belief that 'God' created the universe is as demonstratable and testable as 'invisible pink elephants' created the universe."
Re:Dear Creationists (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, if they're invisible, how can they be pink?
(;
-Ted
analogous != equivalent (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm doing no such thing. You're confusing analogy with equivalence.
My point is that Christianity (specifically, Creationistic Christianity) is going outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour by trying to intrude on other disciplines. If the converse were done to them and their bibles, hopefully they could see the error in their ways.
Unlikely, though. Christianity's biggest problem, as Joseph Campbell pointed out, was that for Christians it's more important to believe the existence of Jesus, Adam and Eve, Satan, etc. than it is to understand the meaningful significance behind them.
so, how is creationism taught anyways? (Score:5, Funny)
Student: Will this be on the test?
Teacher: Will what be on the test?
Re:so, how is creationism taught anyways? (Score:4, Insightful)
Simply state, validly, that evolution seems to fit with the facts as science is best capable of recording it, and that there are some failures which we cannot explain yet but which alternative theories, including creationism might possibly explain. If you start teaching creationism, you're teaching religion, and that should be kept out of public schools.
Anything that, as you say, cannot be explained by science has no place on a science test.
The fundamental problem here is an impression of science as truth. I don't normally like to attack truth, but often what we're using the word for is a scientific construct -- what would have happened assuming that things behaved rationally. Such a belief is a rational belief. Yet if you believe in God, you must believe that He can throw things off. Other arguments (another can of worms which I don't want to get into now, especially not on Slashdot; if you're really interested, get a copy of C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity) argue for believing in the existence of a God. Besides, science admits that spontaneous generation happened in the past -- otherwise, whence did life evolve in the first place? Creationism, in its most fundamental form, is that a Sentience caused that first spontaneous generation.
BTW: people who take Genesis 1 literally should be regarded with about as much truth as you give to Scientologists. Sure, it might be true, but as much evidence as supports the rest of fundamental Christian beliefs supports a non-literal interpretation.
Re:so, how is creationism taught anyways? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean simple amino acids creating more complex ones, and taking a billion years to figure out the cool trick of replicating itself? No need for an invisible hand, just blind, drunken* inevitability. Though I wouldn't quite call it spontanious, unless you're speaking in geological timeframes.
*Metaphorically speaking.
Re:so, how is creationism taught anyways? (Score:5, Informative)
The idea of irreducible complexity is scientifically valid: if you could find a structure which could not have evolved, that's proof that evolution is wrong. That's why evolution is a scientific theory: it proposes tests which it could fail.
Creationists (like the grandparent post) cite certain examples: the eye (there are an awful lot of pieces, and it's hard to see how a less-complex eye could exist to evolve into an eye without first being selected against); the bacterial flagellum (another rather complex piece from which it's hard to imagine the immediate evolutionary precursor).
The examples strike me as extremely strained. There are very few of them repeated over and over. They always apply to soft tissues, so the fossil record is poor. Every time we look at hard tissues, the evolutionary trace is clear.
Despite the complexity of these systems, it still seems that with enough effort we will eventually uncover how they did evolve, perhaps once we have sequenced the genomes of creatures along the evolutionary path. It certainly seems premature to throw out a very successful theory on the basis of this evidence.
But the evidence is there, waiting for you to explain it. Don't dismiss the challenger; know his argument and refute it.
Re:so, how is creationism taught anyways? (Score:5, Funny)
"Intelligent design" my ass. Write up a textbook on "crappy design theory" and I'll buy it.
The Lemov Test (Score:5, Informative)
Since putting the sticker violated rules (2) and (3), it was deemed to be unconstitutional.
Re:The Lemov Test (Score:5, Insightful)
Removing the sticker also violates rule (2) and (3). How are you supposed to believe that the Great Pumpkin poofed the world into being atop the Giant Turtle with all the public schools forcing these scientific theories down your throat as absolute fact.
Only by stating the evolution (or creationism) is merely a strongly (weakly) supported scientific theory, are we Great Pumkin worshippers not inhibited in holding our silly beliefs, and thus entangling the schools into endorsing atheism or agnosticism.
Re:The Lemov Test (Score:4, Insightful)
The Patriot Act does not, of course, break the 4th or 6th amendments, though it may be incompatible with them. One of the many strengths of the United States Constitution is that it provides for a resolution to this kind of problem that is well short of overthrowing the government, specifically, appealling court decisions which involve the Patriot Act until a court is reached which has the scope to rule on that compatibility. Our responsibility, which we do not take lightly, is to avail ourselves of the remedies which exist under law before discarding law in favor of outright revolution.
A lesser nation might have devolved into chaos following a court ruling that decided a tight presidential race. But in the US, those that disagreed with the decision value the consitutional process too much to discard it when the outcome isn't to their liking.
PDF of complete decision (Score:5, Informative)
ICR - Institute for Creation Research (Score:5, Funny)
How can America ignore the evidence? (Score:4, Interesting)
1st Place: "My Uncle Is A Man Named Steve (Not A Monkey)"
One of my personal favorites
2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"
Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.
(P.S. that site is for real)
For those with brains and a spiritual center (Score:5, Interesting)
This was spot on for me, and since we're in the smart room right now with this article, I thought I'd share. It's a wonderful explanation of why critical thinkers can still have faith.
----------------
TOR NØRRETRANDERS
Science Writer; Consultant; Lecturer, Copenhagen; Author, The User Illusion
I believe in belief--or rather: I have faith in having faith. Yet, I am an atheist (or a "bright" as some would have it). How can that be?
It is important to have faith, but not necessarily in God. Faith is important far outside the realm of religion: having faith in other people, in oneself, in the world, in the existence of truth, justice and beauty. There is a continuum of faith, from the basic everyday trust in others to the grand devotion to divine entities.
Recent discoveries in behavioural sciences, such as experimental economics and game theory, shows that it is a common human attitude towards the world to have faith. It is vital in human interactions; and it is no coincidence that the importance of anchoring behaviour in riskful trust is stressed in worlds as far apart as Søren Kierkegaard's existentialist christianity and modern theories of bargaining behaviour in economic interactions. Both stress the importance of the inner, subjective conviction as the basis for actions, the feeling of an inner glow.
One could say that modern behavioral science is re-discovering the importance of faith that has been known to religions for a long time. And I would argue that this re-discovery shows us that the activity of having faith can be decoupled from the belief in divine entities.
So here is what I have faith in: We have a hand backing us, not as a divine foresight or control, but in the very simple and concrete sense that we are all survivors. We are all the result of a very long line of survivors who survived long enough to have offspring. Amoeba, rodents and mammals. We can therefore have confidence that we are experts in survival. We have a wisdom inside, inherited from millions of generations of animals and humans, a knowledge of how to go about life. That does not in any way imply foresight or planning ahead on our behalf. It only implies that we have a reason to trust out ability to deal with whatever challenges we meet. We have inherited such an ability.
Therefore, we can trust each other, ourselves and life itself. We have no guarantee or promises for eternal life, not at all. The enigma of death is still there, ineradicable.
But we a reason to have confidence in ourselves. The basic fact that we are still here--despite snakes, stupidity and nuclear weapons--gives us reason to have confidence in ourselves and each other, to trust others and to trust life. To have faith.
Because we are here, we have reason for having faith in having faith.
Instead of Removal... (Score:5, Funny)
p
I'm in the Cobb County School District (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm in the Cobb County School District (Score:4, Funny)
"I hope that this won't negatively impact my future, maybe I'll get lucky and the admissions officers at the schools I'm applying to won't read the news today."
No problem, just show up for your interview in a t-shirt with 'CAUTION - MAY CONTAIN THEORY' written across the front. They'll love you.
Obligatory link to talkorigins.org (Score:5, Interesting)
Cut and paste to avoid slashdot effect.
Page titled "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory":m l
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.ht
Hence, saying that for sure evolution "is not a fact" at best cannot be proven, at at worst is downright false.
Want more ? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Quote:Creationism vs. Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
I was raised in a Roman Catholic family and went to a Catholic high school. Funny thing is they taught us EVOLUTION, not creationism, in science class. We discussed the creation story in theology and how it was a metaphor for evolution since the people who were inspired to write the Bible didn't have the knowledge to understand evolution.
When will the people who want to put stickers like this in textbooks get the clue that trying to put science under the purvue of religion is a bad idea. Remember what happened to Galileo? When a group of people persecute others that don't agree with their idea of the "truth", we have tyrany.
I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Read it carefuly, actually it is -1 Creationism. They are ruling creationist's stickers unconstitutional, though wierdly enough part of me feels like it is also "-1 Free Speech".
-Em
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Informative)
As a former Catholic, I feel compelled to point out (for clarification purposes only) that the Catholic Church is not opposed to the theory of Evolution. It does question some of the "ape-to-human" points in the theory, but, from what I have read, that appears more to be from a lack of evidence than from some overall dogmatic opposition to humans evolving from apes -- check these out link [newadvent.org] and link [newadvent.org].
Both links are very long articles that go into significant detail, but from the summaries I read, I interpret them to mean the Catholic Church is concerned where the human "soul" came from. They are not caught up in a creationistic point of view and they appear to be quite accepting in many of the finer points in evolution.
And, to go a step further, the Catholic Church, unlike some of the Evangalicals, does NOT believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't they have evolved as well?
They did.
Why don't dolphins have thumbs by now?
Why would a dolphin need thumbs? They are perfectly well adapted to their environment. They are the top of their food chain.
Why can't rats talk yet?
Why should rats be able to talk? Rats are superbly adapted, and will probably outlast us. We couldn't wipe out the rats if we tried, so what evolutionary pressure is there to drive them to talk?
These are all questions based on a naive understanding of evolution based on the simple phrase "survival of the fittest". The seems to imply to people that if some adaptation (e.g. thumbs, speech, being able to fly, mutant super-powers) is or would be helpful, then that adaptation will necessarily arise and dominate. This is simply untrue.
A more accurate and revealing phrase might be "survival of the sufficiently fit". If a species is able to find food and procreate successfully then there is little pressure to change. Most mutations and new features are detrimental, not beneficial. Even if a "good" feature arises it will not necessarily spread and dominate if the rest of the species is able to do fine as they are. Even flaws -- sickle cell anemia, our vestigal appendix -- can survive if they aren't sufficiently damaging that they prevent survival (or in the case of sickle cell, can have benefits such as increased resistance to malaria).
You might as well ask why humans can't fly. We do just fine on the ground, thank you very much.
On the other hand, environmental pressure can quickly result in adaptation. Here [bbc.co.uk] is a fascinating example: poisonous toads imported to Australia were multiplying like crazy and killing the local predators that tried to eat them. Since their arrival in the 30's, a couple species of snakes have adapted to be able to more saftely eat these frogs. You see, snakes without the correct trait were not sufficiently fit and the pressure to change was huge.
Evolution is not an exact science -- the main theory for new features arising is random mutation of DNA! Questioning evolution because rats can't talk or because monkies can't fly and don't have laser eye beams is misunderstanding the point.
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be moronic. Yes, the ACLU has gone too far in enforcing separation of Church and State by hindering individual and consensual religious expression. No, the scientific community and the debate over evolution do not have anything whatsoever to do with exterminating Christianity. Sure, a lot of scientists are not Christian, but many are.
The only reason evolution and the scientific community can be considered enemies of Christianity is because certain subsets of Christianity insist on promoting a dogmatic view of the world that contradicts basic facts. It's a silly as calling Galileo an enemy of God, when really he was only an enemy of the Church because he contradicted their dogma and thus undermined their secular authority. In reality the Church was simply wrong, not to mention hubristic in assuming that earth was the center of the universe.
This is the tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Insightful)
All over the world, religious adherents are using the old arguments of postmodernism to try to discredit science wherever it contradicts their beliefs. They are not engaging in scientific debate, but in meta-debates, using methods from literary criticism to paint science as mere opinion and orthodoxy. They are not talking about evidence. They are arguing that evidence itself is irrelevant. And they are not talking to scientists, who have already heard all their arguments and refuted them soundly. They are talking to people without any scientific knowledge, preferrably as young as they can get them. From the sound of some of the responses on this post, they've been talking to a lot of the people here. The goal is political. They can't refute science, but if they get enough votes, they can outlaw it.
I'm not kidding about this. The strategy is called The Wedge [butterfliesandwheels.com], and the long term goal (we're talking in terms of generations here) is to encourage a widespread attitude of distrust towards science and skeptical thinking. The have identified science, quite correctly, as the greatest threat to the type of magical thinking required for fundamentalist religions. Muslim and Hindu extremists have come to the same conclusion, as have a horde of New Age con men and fortune tellers, and are fighting for the same goal; the disparagement of science and the scientific method.
Anyone here who does not think that the scientific method works, throw out your computer now. And your car, all your appliances, hell, you should probably burn your house, because all of these things, the way they're made, the materials they are made of, are possible because of science. You probably would not be alive without the medicine and food that scientific advances have made possible. Think of the number of people who just died in the Asian Tsunami who would have lived if there had been an early warning system. Ignorance kills.
And if you think that evolution is just a theory or 'pseudo-scientific propaganda', that there are lots of arguments against it and its on shaky ground, then you haven't bothered to read the literature. I'm sorry, but all the arguments against it advanced by ID theorists and Creationists have been answered [truman.edu], and there is no alternative theory that has anywhere near the same volume of evidence to support it. If you don't know this, I suspect you either don't care to know it, or would refuse to acknowledge any evidence no matter how sound.
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose they didn't involve, rather God stepped in and created new superior bacteria as a punishment for heathen textbooks.
Re: What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, when they put similar notices in Physics textbooks that gravity is a theory, not a proven fact, I'll stop complaining.
Re: What? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, science is a democracy now? I'm supposed to let the mouth-breathing, troglodytic masses who can't be bothered to learn what an allele is have a say in the science education in public schools? Why does the fact that a large portion of the world is too stupid / lazy / superstitious to learn about evolution matter to you?
Re: What? (Score:5, Funny)
Its time to fight against the predjudice towards cave dwelling people with overgrown nasal septa!
Re: What? (Score:5, Informative)
A minority of people in this country understand the Calculus. They should be the ones who decide what everyone's kids learn in school. So, yes, exactly: a minority should decide what the majority's kids learn in schools everyone's taxes fund. That's because the minority is often smarter.
Re: What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? My impression is that a rather large part of the world's population, quite probably a majority, accept evolution. Let's start with the Chinese, who comprise about a quarter. Add most Europeans and a large percentage of Americans and most Canadians. The only groups that I know of that are generally opposed to evolution are fundamentalist Protestants (Catholics and non-fundamentalist protestants accept evolution - I'm not sure about the Orthodox and monophysite churches) conservative Muslims, and some Hindus. And those Hindus who do not accept evolution have quite a different version of creationism from the Christians and Muslims.
Re: What? (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe that the official Roman Catholic view is that evolution took place as scientists believe. They add the claim that at the point at which humans became human, God infused them with souls. This isn't really inconsistent with biological theory since biology doesn't have anything to say about souls. Effectively, the official view is biology + infusion of the soul.
I agree that those Christians who believe in evolution would not agree that life evolved purely as a result of cosmic chance, but evolution in and of itself doesn't require that. A purely materialist scientist sees no need to appeal to anything other than chance, but one can hold a perfectly orthodox view of evolution and at the same time believe that a Supreme Being set the whole thing in motion.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between evolution as a scientific theory and ID as a "We're a theory, too, really!" is that evolution derives from observation and application of the scientific method and will be changed as more data becomes available. ID, on the other hand, is derived from a book written with the advice of an invisible friend in the sky and will resist with all its might new data -- like observed evolution.
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh Jeez... not this shit again. "Theory", as used in science, is not the same thing as "wild ass guess" (as the word is used in common usage). The difference between a theory and a law is that a law can be absolutely proven, a theory cannot. But just because evolution cannot be proven with absolute certainity, does not mean it is scientifically solid.
Additionally (Score:5, Informative)
A quote I've seen attributed to Asimov:
'The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny..."'
Intelligent design/creationism are not falsifiable and do not belong in a science class. They belong in a class studying mythology and fairy tales.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 +
1 - 1 = 0, so logically it follows that:
(1 - 1) + (1 - 1) +
Removing the parentheses:
1 - 1 + 1 - 1 +
Adding new parentheses:
1 + ( -1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) +
Simplifying:
1 = 0
Thus, God can create the universe out of nothing.
QED
God could not be reached for comment.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
The continuing problem with religous conviction is that it presupposes fact. Science, on the other hand, assumes denial. If you come up with the hypothesis "God's tears cause thunder." you need to prove God. You may be able to (as possibilty may allow) but you need to be smarter than _many_ that have come before you.
If we reduce the argument to "Variation of life on earth couldn't exist without a guiding ${THING}". Then presumption is that ${THING} is god, but you can't do that because your hypothesis didn't include that. Change the hypothesis to include God and you are stuck with the proof-of-god conundrum again.
At some point you have to include assumption which isn't science, rather subjective reality. You can not prove it objectively, therefore we can't agree on it and it is not testable.
2000 lawsuit-threatening parents (Score:5, Insightful)
They had a flaming bag of dogshit tossed on their doorstep, and they made a choice as to which foot to stomp with. If they'd decided to do nothing, they get sued. If they put the current sticker in, they get sued (albeit by a different group.) If they changed the wording to say something like "all religion is theory, as is evolution; decide for yourself" they'd get sued too. A better solution would have been to show the bitching parents the door, and remind them that they can always home-school the little hellions if the parents don't like the public school curriculum. At least then the school district could have stood up in the courtroom (for the inevitable lawsuit) and maintained that "we will not endorse religion; any of them." A lawsuit was pretty much inevitable. I don't think they chose the right one, though.
Re:"Creationist"? (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize "Electricity" is a theory right? The reason this was thrown out, was because it was a deliberate attempt to confuse school children by muddying the difference between the common usage of the word theory (aka. hunch) and the scientific: [reference.com]
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Is there a better way to teach scientific thinking to students than to emphasize "what you are learning is not final"?
In fact, no... but the basic tenant of science is to keep an open mind so why stress this about evolution? Also, as I stated, this was not designed to open students minds but merely to confuse them.
Re:Why are we abolishing critical thinking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why single out evolution?
It only states that Evolution is a theory regarding the origin of living things
Actually, it's a theory regarding the origin and diversity of species. Evolution does not cover the ultimate origins of life, and the disclaimer is misleading in its wording.
Re:Which religion? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GOD IS DEAD (Score:4, Insightful)
Year 1900: Nietzsche is dead -- God
That's funny, but it doesn't actually make any sense when you think about it. Try this:
Year 1882: "God is dead" -- Nietzsche
Year 1900: "Nietzsche is dead" -- Newspaper
"" -- God
Re:Just to be Safe (Score:4, Insightful)
do you really think that the best reason to believe in a god is to treat it as a hedge bet against eternal damnation?
You are tremendously disingineous.... (Score:4, Insightful)
THe court sought through it and rightly smacked the idea down as the offensive nonsense it clearly is.