Utah Votes 'No' to Darwin's Critics 792
NewbieV writes "An article in Tuesday's New York Times notes that proposed legislation which would have 'stress[ed] that not all scientists agree on which theory regarding the origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race, is correct;' has failed by a 46-28 vote in a Republican-controlled state House of Representatives."
Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish (Score:3, Informative)
Much more information regarding this decision can be found in this Salt Lake Tribune article [sltrib.com], including many memorable quotes from the legislators involved.
From TFA: Also from TFA (this one is priceless): Kudos to the Utah House of Representatives for giving this bill (as well as Senator Buttars himself) the treatment they both so richly deserve.
Re:Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish (Score:3, Funny)
I don't the apes would want to claim Buttars as a descendant, either.
Ape-descended legislators... (Score:3, Funny)
>
> I don't the apes would want to claim Buttars as a descendant, either.
Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western United States lies a small unregarded salt pond. Adjacent to this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight is an utterly insignificant little state whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they sti
Butt-ars? (Score:2)
Re:Butt-ars? (Score:4, Informative)
For more Chris Buttars, please read [livejournal.com] through his various appearances as a nominee for "Boner of the Day" (morning show, daily moron contest).
Some of his great quotes include:
Re:Butt-ars? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok sir but even if you won't go, just let us ta
Re:Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish (Score:2)
"There are a number of influential legislators who believe you evolved from an ape," Buttars said following the vote. "I didn't."
However, there are several legislators who believe Senator Buttars may be evolved from lemmings, or perhaps voles. The vote on that was split 38-36 along species lines.
Re:Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish (Score:2)
The name says it all really. Butt. Ars.
Re:Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish (Score:2)
The funny thing about that is that he's actually correct. He didn't evolve from an ape, but that's due to a lack of evolution, not due to a lack of an ape... ^_~
Re:Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish (Score:2)
Re:Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish (Score:3, Informative)
The theory doesn't say man evolved from the ape but that man and ape once had a _common ancestor_. But I guess we can't expect everybody to be well-informed, even those who hold the power to decide...
*sigh*
Re:Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish (Score:3, Insightful)
Something tells me he has no problems teaching kids "facts" based solely on open interpretation of 3000+ year old texts, though.
=Smidge=
Re:Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish (Score:4, Informative)
Re:GO AWAY AC (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish (Score:3, Informative)
However, "evolution" with respect to the origin of life is a theory.
Evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life. Evolution is the fact that organisms reproduce, mutate, and change. Evolution by natural selection is an important biological theory that is widely midunderstood. Abiogenesis [wikipedia.org] is the theory that life on earth came from primordial ooze, and it has a lot less evidence for it than does evolution. This does not mean that is it neccessarily incorrect.
Of course, many theists jus
Evolution/IEducation (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether teaching Evolution, "Intellegent Design", or this Utah "4 out of 5 Dentists agree" crap, the problem is not the teaching of these theories. The key problem is teaching children to question conventional wisdom. Kids need to be taught to always question what they know. Kids need to know what your teacher teaches you is what everyone "thinks" to be right at the moment, but who knows what the future will bring. If you're going to lobby gangbusters to teach the kids of today something, teach them to evaluate what they are taught themselves. The world is many shades of grey, not black and white.
P.S. - I always slept through English class
Re:Evolution/IEducation (Score:2)
Re:Evolution/IEducation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Evolution/IEducation (Score:2)
On the other hand, if someone believes in God, then ID makes sense... you don't have to disbelieve evolution, really. And one thing I'm getting quite sick of is using consensus as a form of p
Re:Evolution/IEducation (Score:2)
Actualy, I'd think a better approach would be to teach the mechanics of evolution in biology class, and discuss the question of weither or not it was guided by a supriem being to philosophy class. I'd think most people would be satisfied with this approach. No metaphysics should b
Re:Evolution/IEducation (Score:2)
Re:Evolution/IEducation (Score:2)
Re:Evolution/IEducation (Score:2)
Did you even read what the parent post was saying? You seem to be unable to grasp that there is such a thing as a scientific method, and that scientific theories are thought within the framework of the scientific method.
What purpose would it serve to introduce a one-liner about belief, w
Re:Evolution/IEducation (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with using Wikipedia for definitions. Facts, ya, that can be a problem but definitions are fine. The whole point of having a term defined is so that everyone can agree on it's meaning. So when I posted the definition of evolution, I was referring to the accepted meaning of the term. If it means something else to you then that's OK
Re:Evolution/IEducation (Score:2)
Thus the students learn more than an unimportant list of facts -- they learn how to determine truth in a scientific debate.
Yes!!!! (Score:2)
Gotta run. Don't have time.
(yes, this is sarchastic - and sadly, true.)
Re:Evolution/IEducation (Score:2)
Re:Evolution/IEducation (Score:2)
Just try questioning it on Slashdot and watch what happens.
Is that the new talking point? (Score:2)
Intellectual Pollution (Score:2)
You would not willingly expose children to putrid waste or toxic chemicals, so why expose them to the intellectual pollutions that are called "intelligent design" or "creationism"?
If these concepts would rest purely on religious foundations, that would not be so bad. But in reality they are based on a corrosive mix of religion with intellectual dishonesty, bad logic, and intentional distortions of the truth. People object to the religious influence, but that is merely the innocent of it.
By all means, le
I Call BS (Score:2)
Re:Evolution/IEducation (Score:2)
I think there are two facets of this:
1) In science class, students ought to learn the scientific method and how it can be used to prove or disprove a given hypothesis. This should not be done as part of the discussion on evolution, but as part of every science class. Students should be welcomed to try to prove or disprove any hypothesis using the scientific method. However, it's unlikely that any student will be well enough versed in
Good. (Score:2)
Simon
Allow me to be the first to say... (Score:3, Funny)
Thank God!! (Score:2)
Re:Thank God!! (Score:2)
Re:Thank God!! (Score:2)
saints preserve us (Score:5, Interesting)
Professor Duane Jeffery, a professor of biology at Brigham Young University, estimates that "probably 90 percent of people who are LDS think the church is against evolution. But they don't get upset about it being taught in public schools." The reason, he says, is the church seminary system, which provides junior high and high school students with a class period of religious instruction during school hours. "Most parents feel their religion is being take care of in seminary," Jeffery says. Conservative gadfly Gayle Ruzicka, president of the Utah Eagle Forum, sees it this way: "Utah's children, for the most part are taught by their parents that evolution is not correct science. The parents feel more control because they know they're teaching their children the truth at home." That truth, she says, is that "you are a child of God," a phrase that Mormons learn from the time they can talk, she says. "It's a year or two of learning about evolution vs. a lifetime of hearing that you are a child of God. Evolution just doesn't win out."
It looks like Utah doesn't feel threatened by teaching evolution because they have faith in what they believe (and what they learn in the seminary). I'd say that's a step in the right direction for seperation of church and state... that is assuming that these semenary classes aren't mandated.Re:saints preserve us (Score:2, Informative)
It is a good system. Let the schools teach science, let church teach faith, and let each individual figure it out for themselves.
Re:saints preserve us (Score:3, Insightful)
"How do you feel about having your child instructed in what's 'true' by a [Mormon/Muslim/Catholic/Protestant/Jew/Satanist] teacher?"
Smart religious people obviously would want their religion taught to their kids by their church, not by a public school. It's really only people who irrationally assume that the public school would be teaching just their religion and no one else's that are in favor of stuff like
Re:saints preserve us (Score:3, Funny)
"How do you feel about having your child instructed in what's 'true' by a [Mormon/Muslim/Catholic/Protestant/Jew/Satanist] teacher?"
Sure, as long as he's not Episcopalean.
Re:saints preserve us (Score:3, Insightful)
And I agree, GP is definitely flamebait. And remarkably stupid.
There have been lots of very smart people who have held religious beliefs. There are also lots of very smart people who aren't religious, but who hold other irrational beliefs. I daresay you won't find a single human anywhere who doesn't have at least some kind of irrational beliefs or behavior patterns. Unless GP poster is a nihilist who rejects calling
Re:saints preserve us (Score:2)
Having said that, there are schools where Mormons so predominate, that lots of non-Mormon kids attend seminary to fit in and be with their friends. Worse, when there are only a handful of kids in a school who don't attend seminary, everyone kn
Re:Let's quote a non-authority who makes a wild gu (Score:3, Informative)
I'd go even further and say that 90% of Mormons think they know the position of the church on evolution and they are wrong. Wrong in that they don't know what the position is, and wrong in that they assume that it is anti-evolution. The official position is that the church takes no position on the matter. Evolution is not incompatible with LDS beliefs.
Enough Tolerance (Score:2)
Re:Enough Tolerance (Score:2)
Re:Enough Tolerance (Score:2)
Re:Enough Tolerance (Score:2)
When I see the word "metaphysical" I think "belief without proof", and when I see the word "spirit", I see "that which causes a portion of the natural world to be motivated to do something". Thus since there is no proof that mutations are truly random, the amount of importance put on random mutation by those who clai
Re:Enough Tolerance (Score:2)
Re:Enough Tolerance (Score:2)
That is, of course, the definition of "random" taught in science classes. Not the sinister, purely metaphysical definition taught in pseudoscience creationism classes, to which you refer.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Re:Enough Tolerance (Score:2)
Either way, it's still an appeal to faith- a cop out.
That is, of course, the definition of "random" taught in science classes. Not the sinister, purely metaphysical definition taught in pseudoscience creationism classes, to which you refer.
Anybody who claims to know what happened before the invention of the written word is using a sinister, metaphysical explainatio
Re:Enough Tolerance (Score:2)
"most people don't believe that it is literally true."
I think you'd be surprised at exactly how many people belive that creationism is literally true.
Re:Enough Tolerance (Score:2)
You can play your political games with your "both sides", but they're irrelevant to science. There are many opinions about cosmology, but religious stories are not among the facts.
I'm not so much surprised by how many people believe in literal biblical creation, I'm disgusted by it. That's one reason it has to stop being taught as science, or anything but a metaphysical story, i
Re:Enough Tolerance (Score:2)
Interacting with most
Re:Enough Tolerance (Score:2)
Re:Enough Tolerance (Score:2)
You forgot a few.
There is also BYU Idaho and BYU Hawaii and BYU Israel. That pretty much sums it up.
Re:Enough Tolerance (Score:2)
The problem with this is that Evolution and Speciation aren't science. They're just more faith based explainations for things that human beings can't possibly ever know with certainty.
Re:Enough Tolerance (Score:2)
Re:Enough Tolerance (Score:2)
"This year the government will hand over $867,000 to two fundamentalist Mormon schools -- $363,000 to the new Mormon Hills School and $504,000 to Bountiful Elementary-Secondary School."
I'm sure that more searches would find even more public funding of Mormon schools.
Re:Enough Tolerance (Score:3, Informative)
None, as far as I know. Often our morality and thus school rules and such are informed by religious principles, but never science.
As someone else pointed out, BYU, the only private Mormon university, teaches evolution in biology class. The public schools do the same.
Looks like it had been defanged anyway. (Score:2)
Also:
1. I'm slightly annoyed at people using "anti-Darwin" and "anti-evolutionist" interchangibly.
2. I wish the media would stop trying to fuel the "Science/Logic vs. Religion/Faith War", which to a large extent wouldn't exist if they
Re:Looks like it had been defanged anyway. (Score:2)
It's not potentially misleading, it is misleading. Even ID proponents like Behe accept evolution and common descent.
The statement is designed to make it appear as if there is a conflict in science when, in fact, there isn't. The
Re:Looks like it had been defanged anyway. (Score:2)
"Technically true" is not good enough. Judge Jones in the Dover case did a rather good job of explaining why selective use of a "technically true" disclaimer is impermissible.
Re:Looks like it had been defanged anyway. (Score:2)
Your signature is interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
“Moral relativism” is a redundant term. All morals are intrinsically relative to the people, times, and places from which they originate. Thousands of years ago, it used to be that stoning women to death for getting raped was moral, while today, that is no longer the case. It also used to be moral to have slaves, but that too was based on whether you lived in the north or the south. Peo
I'm not really surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
So the idea of making up a law saying "here's how it is, suckers! Believe this way!" is against the typical belief of "separation of church and state". (Granted, Utah is not a shining example of this all the time - see the liquer laws they have, but like I said, I don't live there).
Even if we believe that God had a hand in it, there's a lot of individual belief in how it happens. Was "Garden of Eden" a fable of sorts for early Isrealites since they wouldn't get "Well, God started the universe from the vacuum using a 20 dimensional algorithm that would solidify into 3 stable dimensions of space, 1 of time, and gravity with values X" - or was there a "snap of the fingers"? Some church authorities have given their opinions on it, but I've never seen an official "it was this and no other".
I'm more of a "what does it really matter in the grand scheme of things" anyway. i don't think God's going to ask me what I thought about "intelligent design" or "evolution" when I die - he's going to ask me about how I treated my wife, my children, my friends, my enemies, my coworkers, and others. So I believe in evolution - yes, the Darwin version - until a voice on high says something different. And even then, I'll check to make sure somebody didn't slip me some really interesting mushrooms - just in case.
Most of us like science - and yes, I even appreciate the ones that show my religion, like most others, is probably full of it. I just use the "South Park Mormon episode thought" about the whole thing.
Then, there's b) getting voted out of office. Remember the Dover school officials who decided to bring Intelligent Design to their schools - and the next election got voted out? Even in a Mormon state, all an opponent has to do is start up "You're trying to mix church and state? What are you doing?", and there are enough non-Mormons in the state to resonate with that, and enough Mormons who think about Illinois and how the state not doing their job in protecting *all* religions that their dander gets up.
Anyway - good move by the congress, by the majority whip who brought in an amendment that all but killed the bill, and to the folks who voted it down. As the article says - if a super conservative religious state like Utah won't approve it, there's probably hope for the rest of the country.
This is all just my opinion. I could be wrong. And I'm hardly a good example of Mormonism anyway - I tend to say "fuck" too much in company
Re:I'm not really surprised (Score:2)
Re:I'm not really surprised (Score:2)
Re:I'm not really surprised (Score:3, Informative)
Note that this does not grant anyone the right to not worship. It is freedom to religion, not freedom from religion.
Re:I'm not really surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a moral responsibility not to force your beliefs down your own childs throat.
I think I have a moral responsibility to give my child the benefit of something that has done so much good for my life, and the lives of so many others I know.
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Only 9 out of 10 Dentists agree that flouride toothpaste reduce cavities. Since there are dissenting Dentists, you're probably better off gargling with Coke.
Where did Bill go? (Score:2)
Now we must ask ourselves:
1) Did the Bill go to Heaven, Hell or Purgatory?
2) Did the Bill become reincarnated as a better Bill?
3) Did the Bill do nothing, and now remains just a memory for its beloved?
Re:Where did Bill go? (Score:2)
so (Score:2)
Re:so (Score:2)
Are the Mormons to blame? (Score:2)
What? No body else watches South Park [google.com]?
Religious Rotgut (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically the whole 'intelligent design' movement is yet another attack on secularism. For those who embrace this theory, it's not enough for
Re:Religious Rotgut (Score:2)
Re:Religious Rotgut (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Religious Rotgut (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been tested. It's been observed. You're either in denial or ignorent.
You see, there is every bit the agenda on the part of evolutionists to take God out of society. I don't want to put God into society, just to let people decide for themselves.
I disagree. I think you do want to put God into society, and you have an agenda to force people to accept that God exists. To prove my theory, I will simple ask you that were you to have children, or if you already have had children, will you/have you instructed them religiously? If the answer is yes then you are a prosyletist.
The point is to stop teaching evolution as a fact, and not to teach complex theories to children who don't know what to do with them.
People around the world try and teach children the mysteries of transubstatiation, or ressurection, or eternity or some other such rubbish. These are, at the best of times, highly advanced intellectual concepts. Children should not be taught these complex theories as they don't know what to do with them. Plus, they aren't even fact, unlike evolution.
The attempts by many Christians to teach ID and creation are not intended to shun science or make second-class citizens out of atheists; it's just a reaction to what many view as being an untruthful, specifically anti-Christian approach.
Yes they are. And atheists are second class citizens. Unlike their religious "peers", their views and practices, no matter how outrageous, are not constitutionally protected. The Christain approach is the untruthful one. The religion is filled with lies, contridictions, falsehoods, evils and hate; yet to proslyetise and indoctrinate it is legally protected.
The truth is, you've been brainwashed by the village shamen or nearest cultural equivilant. Try not to subject your children to the same treatment. You only get so many of them.
Please Stop Posting These (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really not a great idea to post these evolution debate storys. This story will generate a huge amount of comments as the creationists try and blast the boards with their nonsense. And I do not hesitate to call it that. Nonsense. Mod points will be burned, flames will fly, karma will be gained and lost again and again in the same comment.
The creationists are essentially trolls, who are given free reign in these sanctioned stories to start flame wars. I have no doubt that many creantionist comments simply are trolls, looking to start a nice hot flame war. They succeed every time.
It's all a waste. Slashdot is news for nerds. This is really a US centric debate, and quite a lot of the slashdot readership is simply not in any way interested in the current US culture war. Many find it completely perplexing, like a story you'd hear about people somewhere worshipping a kid with a tail. This creation thing is not really a science story and is more a (very US centric) culture and politics issue.
OK. I accept that in some cases, these evolution stories are quite relevant in a science context. But only when the evolution/creation "debate" is not itself core and main extent the story. Postings on the NASA PR's censoring of scientists I do want to hear about. That affected scientists, and was only a result of the evolution/creation "debate". Similarly with fuding cuts due to fallout from the issue.
But stories like these, which are not about science, and are simply about another aspect of a culture/political war going on in the US, do not belong in the science section. There's no science here. There isn't even a victory for science. It's just the outcome of one skirmish between religious groups and secular people in the US.
I accept that this may be an important issue for US slashdotters, but please understand that this is a very, very, very US centric story, that really belongs in the Slashdot politics section, not in the science section and certainly not on the main page.
Hopefully this comment might start a good meta discussion that the editors may take notice of. But more than likely it will simply be lost amid the vast torrent of comments, flames and threads surrounding it.
Re:Please Stop Posting These (Score:2)
Actually, I've found that even though I live in the US, there are quite a few threads on Slashdot that do not interest me. I've come up with a unique solution: I don't read them.
Not a US-only phenomena (Score:2)
I disagree that this is a US-only debate. See for example Britons unconvinced on evolution [bbc.co.uk].
Re:Please Stop Posting These (Score:3, Funny)
It's really not a great idea to __[verb1]___ these ___[adj1]_____ stories. This story will generate a huge amount of __[noun1]____ as the ___[collective noun1]______ try and __[verb2]_____ the ___[noun2]_____ with their _[noun3]_______. And I do not hesitate to call it that: ___[noun4]________. ___[plural noun1]____ will be ____[verb3]____, ___[plural noun2]___
True Science Vs. True Religion (Score:2, Insightful)
1- False religion in the face of true science.
2- False science in the face of true religion.
3- False religion in the face of false science.
True science and true religion have the same end goal, the pursuit of truth. They just have different methodologies to go about finding truth.
Next Up, the Disenfranchised Fundamentalists! (Score:2, Interesting)
I've discussed evolution versus intelligent design before. I do believe that they do not really have to be enemies. I've said before that evolution does not deny God, or any creator. My complaint has to do with the teaching of intelligent design as a science when it is nothing of the sort. It's religion through and through.
I've also claimed that even many religious organizations don't disbelieve evolution. After all,
First to consider it = moron (Score:2)
Gee, "we barely got by not looking like a bunch of dumbarses with no sense of logic and science" is a real nice badge of honor.
Barely above retard-level is an achivement in your large extended mormon family? Nice.
Everyone has religeon.... even atheists (Score:2, Interesting)
That being said, has anyone noticed that those who try to eradicate all traces of religeon from public life are zealots, in almost a religeous way? Except that the state is their God and provider instead of an unseen, all-powerful being.
Rambling a little bit more, it's been put thusly: "The bible tells us what
in a later vote... (Score:2)
Not ALL (Score:2)
Not ALL people in Utah are religious fanatics.
Not ALL Mormons are religious fanatics.
SOME Republicans are religious fanatics.
SOME people in Utah are religious fanatics.
SOME Mormons are religious fanatics.
Anyone with at least a basic understanding in logic can see the difference.
And that difference is valid for ALL generalisations (exept this one). SOME (insert group) are (insert stereotype). But NOT ALL are!
As soon as we understand that, we might start to be able t
Thank God! (Score:3, Funny)
(Heheheh. Couldn't resist.)
Re:Utah of all places! (Score:2)
I'd argue that this puts Utah squarely in 49th place, after Kansas.
Re:Utah of all places! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Utah of all places! (Score:2)
Re:Utah of all places! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Utah of all places! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Utah of all places! (Score:3, Insightful)
"Some say that Mormonism, with its emphasis that all beings can progress toward higher planes of existence, before and after death, has a receptivity toward evolutionary thought that other religions might lack."
I'd guess that religions related to Hinduism would also have some evolutionary leanings, then.
Re:Open-minded Enough? (Score:2)
Sounds like a potential convert to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!" [venganza.org]
Re:That's a heckuva thing to vote over. (Score:4, Interesting)
Idiot - you have no idea what Darwinism is, or what modern evolutionary theory is for that matter.
Read The Origin of the Species and then come back and post. I have and therefore have a right to comment on Darwinism.
Get a clue.
Easy question (Score:4, Insightful)
Because most people are stupid?
What do I win?
Smartass comments aside, I think it's because there's just too much knowledge. It's painful trying to understand complex ideas, and the world is full of complex ideas. It's much simpler to embrace a simple viewpoint, one which will give you the answers you seek without requiring thought.
Consider simple moral questions. In the real world, moral judgements are sometimes difficult. By embracing a set of pre-written moral standards and applying them uncritically, life becomes much easier. "Homosexuality is wrong," and "Anyone who claims to believe in Jesus is right," or "The invisible hand of the market will make everything right!" Shades of grey are transformed instantly into wonderful black-and-white just by running it through your Jesus filter (or your Allah filter, or your Ayn Rand filter, or... you get the point).
I doubt we'll ever see a true age of enlightenment.