Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Louisiana passes first antievolution "academic freedom" law
arstechnica.com — Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has signed the Louisiana Science Education Act into law, singling out evolution, origins of life, and global warming for criticism. Let 1,000 Dover trials bloom!
HafizD- 1671 diggs
- digg it
- positron, on 06/27/2008, -16/+416Great job on your new time machine Louisiana! You've traveled back to the Dark Age.
- SuperWinner, on 06/28/2008, -3/+35At least they were the first state to invent time travel...
- Netwatcher, on 06/28/2008, -3/+22I think that was Alabama,
Until a couple years ago back, the stewardess would still used to tell us to set our watches back to 1940, when we would land in Birmingham.
- Netwatcher, on 06/28/2008, -3/+22I think that was Alabama,
- brokencrystal, on 06/28/2008, -57/+6Since when has challenging/criticizing ANY theory been a bad thing? Here is an excellent example of our need for a better education.
- greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -1/+7see http://digg.com/general_sciences/Louisiana_passes_ ... and http://digg.com/general_sciences/Louisiana_passes_ ...
- greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -3/+60And why evolution? why not gravity? or thermodynamics? no critically thinking person imagines this is anything but a way to promote a particular brand of fundamentlist religion
- burnedtubes, on 06/28/2008, -6/+24Eh ***** 'em! Let them dumb down their population more. It's less competition for the educated world.
- 11familyguy11, on 06/28/2008, -1/+42There's nothing wrong with questioning a scientific theory, however, to question a theory you must understand it. To teach controversy in aspects of evolution where there isn't any, and teach it to children, is a problem.
- infinitejones, on 06/28/2008, -2/+35@brokencrystal - you're right. Science is all about criticizing theories. Criticizing them with verifiable, falsifiable, repeatable experiments. None of which can be performed on any of the other "theories" of evolution that proponents of creationism, Intelligent Design or whatever you want to call it put forward. I've said it before and I'll say it again - those people should go away, do some science, and come back to the rest of us with it.
The problem with this bill in the context of science education is that it can be used to completely undermine the way science should be viewed. It can be used to make students think that an "alternate theory" that can't be tested using verifiable, falsifiable, repeatable experiments is a valid one. It doesn't matter whether you're testing the theory of evolution, gravity, thermodynamics or anything else - that's absolutely the wrong thing to teach and in the long run it will completely ruin the US' ability to create scientists and make a valid contribution to the scientific world. - Scruffydan, on 06/28/2008, -2/+22when it is performed by people who don't understand the complexities of the theories they are trying to challenge.
The scientific debate happens in peer-reviewed literature, if your challenge doesn't meet that minimum standard it needs to be tossed.
This bill will only confuse students to what is actually science and what is trash. - nycmac247, on 06/28/2008, -0/+13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
- nylrym, on 06/28/2008, -0/+12Criticizing a theory is neither good nor bad. The basis and method of said criticism are. If I criticize the theory of evolution because I have a more coherent, rational, parsimonious, scientific explanation... then that's great. If I do it out of fear, ignorance, or political motivations it's bad. The issues singled out by this bill are a cherry-picked list of politically motivated issues.
- JEWestbrookJR, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6That isn't challenging/criticizing. That's BANNING IT. Meaning, don't debate it, don't talk about it. In our eyes, it doesn't exist. There is a huge difference.
Nice try at being an intellectual though. - Stavrosian, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5I think the comments above me have summed up quite nicely what an abject failure your attempt at intellectualism was, I'm just here to dance on the grave of your dignity.
- zeabu, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3burntubes: I don't agree. Dumb people breed more and faster. A whole state with dumb people makes their economy fail. People with a failing economy start to migrate to better places. So your state is next, or the one after that.
- insinuate, on 06/28/2008, -1/+25Hey they didn't ask us to vote on this piece of ***** legislation.
Don't blame me.- bono4u, on 06/28/2008, -3/+12What did you do against it?
Did you even notice till this article that there was the "Louisiana Science Education Act" prepared for signing. If yes did you know the content? Did you write letters and emails do the governor? Did you tell your family and friends? Did you protest against it?
Did you vote for Bobby Jindal or didn't you even vote?
I wouldn't blame anyone who i don't know and where i don't know the circumstances, but i think you have to answer to yourself the above questions. - 4DFX, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3Yeah, they didn't ask you to vote... Not that it would make any difference.
- aki42, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Oh no yall I got this letter from bill I think I will re-think my whole life.
- bono4u, on 06/28/2008, -3/+12What did you do against it?
- Jeremyz0r, on 06/28/2008, -5/+45America's education goes further down the rabbit hole.
I do not pity any of you.
Btw, almost all religions in existence are based on the Sun & the 12 zodiacs.
Even Christianity.
Good day.
"Dinosaurs were put here to test my faith!" I "lol" at you sir.- insinuate, on 06/28/2008, -0/+11Reps to you for bill hicks reference. ++
- bjornski, on 06/28/2008, -4/+8"State's rights" in action.
- bono4u, on 06/28/2008, -5/+5>>"Btw, almost all religions in existence are based on the Sun & the 12 zodiacs."
Zeitgeist movie
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847 ... - gn0stik, on 06/28/2008, -3/+7Dude, Zeitgiest is the craziest ass movie I have ever seen. All three parts mis-represent facts, and straight out lie to get their point across. The most accurate, but still wanting part is the one on the Fed Reserve.
It's a bunch of 9/11 truth, wack job, ***** from a bunch of crazies who believe there are lizard people living among us, and hail from the tenth planet, or some crazy ass *****.
So We're supposed to take these nutjobs advice on Christianity, when they are just as ***** crazy?
Oh, by the way, go check sources... OH, they don't have any sources. At least last time I checked they didn't.
Seriously. Did you even bother to fact check what these jerkoffs were spoon feeding you?
Listen, not teaching Evolution in science is completely retarded. If you think Christianity is a myth and you should defend your mind against it, you should be equally defensive of this well put together, but deceptive film. - grizzlybrice, on 06/28/2008, -1/+6but... but... Jesus rode the dinosaurs!
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2Thank you, gn0stik. Somebody had to say it.
- Jeremyz0r, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0Zeitgeist keeps a record of all their sources (or the majority of them) on their website. They even have an FAQ where the only majority that has been 'dis-proving them' is by degenerating their credibility based on social position. (Aka, they haven't dis-proved anything, but have only called them 'crazy')
They lied, yet you exaggerated everything gn0stik? Please take your "SpeedSteamBoat" account with you and GTFO. I'd rather believe crazy people then corrupt senators/presidents/medias/ignorant digg users.
- TheBibIe, on 06/28/2008, -36/+4It's only fair...I /should/ get equal representation. After all..this "evolution" is just a theory.
- Wakkyweed, on 06/28/2008, -1/+17And the Bible is just a collection of fairy tales. Next!
- mysedai, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10You do. It's called Sunday School, and it's where you send your children to learn the particulars of religion. Intelligent Design falls under that category. If you believe that's how we got here, that's perfectly fine, but you have to admit that is a belief that stems from your religious convictions. There is no proof whatsoever to support it, and every other religion will have their own ideas about the particulars.
In school, the regular Monday through Friday variety, children deserve an education free from religious bias. Even if we find out twenty years down the road that the theories we have are all wrong, the current, science-based curriculum teaches students about the scientific method. Circumventing that will be disasterous to future generations of would-be scientists.
That doesn't belittle your beliefs, it just means you have to take a little time to talk to your child and pass those beliefs on to them, rather than depend upon the school system to do it for you. - lamuella, on 06/28/2008, -0/+8yes, it's "just" a theory, while your collection of fairytales is "not" a theory. Ergo it wins.
- ed54, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1I don't agree with evolution, and if someone hates me for it, fine. But it is really annoying when people go around saying evolution is 'just a theory.' That's just not a valid arguement. At least present some actual evidence.
- mcm020, on 06/28/2008, -24/+4I support states' rights. If you don't like it, don't live there.
- Wakkyweed, on 06/28/2008, -1/+19Not a good solution. Studies prove that the people with the least education are also the ones most likely to be poor. Poor people cannot afford to just uproot themselves and move to another state, as that takes money. Therefore, the poor and uneducated people who would most benefit from a proper education are left stuck in that hellhole of a state being taught nonsense.
- alaric41586, on 06/28/2008, -4/+3***** you mcm020 I've lived here my whole life.Also ***** you wakkyweed just because some people here are retarded doesn't make Louisiana a hellhole.It's still better than Florida.
- lamuella, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7and I support the constitution. If you don't like it, secede.
- mcm020, on 06/28/2008, -4/+1I've lived in Louisiana my entire life. I'm currently working on my Masters in Business. The high school I went to sent people to Yale, Dartmouth, U of Chicago, and various other prestigious schools.
If you support Gay Marriage and legal marijuana you should also support Louisiana's right to do this. If you don't like it you don't have to live here.
- emkaysmith, on 06/28/2008, -2/+31The amazing thing is, the Republicans always brag on the fact that THEIR governor (he sure ain't mine . . .) was a Rhodes Scholar. In fact, in the election before last, the one that Jindal lost on his first attempt, ALL THREE candidates insisted that they did not "believe" in evolution. This stupid state sucks in so many ways. If it weren't for Mississippi, we would be at the bottom of EVERY list of standards and accomplishments, and not just most of them.
And DON'T tell me "if you don't like it, move"!!! The job is to drag this misbegotten den of self-righteous ignorance into at least the 20th century.- Kral, on 06/28/2008, -0/+9That sounds like work - can't we just wait for them to declare modern medicine heresy and have this solve itself?
- whyknot2k, on 06/28/2008, -20/+1Hey emkay, welcome to the 21st century. Let me enlighten you on something: one of the things we did in the 20th century was actually debate the issues. You are so backwards in your thinking, you actually believe evolution is settled science, while you bury your head in the sand and ignore the abundant evidence that scientifically questions your faith-based theory. You guys are so snooty and accuse anyone who disagrees with the idea that life happened by pure luck, you are the one who is self-righteous and ignorant. You are the one who is an embarrassment to your state.
If religious lunatics like you actually did leave the state, property values would go way up. - oblique63, on 06/28/2008, -0/+12the fact that you refer to evolution as relying on 'pure luck', clearly demonstrates your ignorance on the matter, and makes it seems as if you are the one who has his head in the sand, thus leaving you with virtually no credibility left for you to even try to make an argument about scientific data... there is virtually no faith needed whatsoever to comprehend proper science, yet you somehow believe it does, so either you just preach nonsense without feeling the need to understand what it is you're preaching against, or you were taught the concept poorly, either way, it is logically impossible for you to possibly have a thorough enough understanding of evolution based on what you have just stated here...
- whyknot2k, on 06/28/2008, -14/+1Oblique63 - let's walk through the claims of evolution:
in an unknown time;
in an unknown place;
in an unknown liquid;
under an unknown atmosphere;
some unknown chemicals got together;
through an unknown process;
created some unknown life forms.
And THAT, my friends, is evolutionary theory in a nutshell. Sure sounds like science to me! If it's credibility you are looking for, you should look elsewhere than evolutionary theory.
I agree no faith is required to comprehend proper science. We agree on that. I disagree, however, that the unproven idea that all life evolved by chance from a single-celled organism is scientific.
* there are no transitional links and intermediate forms in the fossil record or the modern world - were evolution true, we would find new ones daily;
* the second law of thermodynamics makes it clear that order does not arise out of disorder;
* the law of biogenesis tells us that life can only come from pre-existing life;
* and the law of spontaneous generation states that life cannot come from non-life.
In response to these facts, evolutionists propose ridiculous theories like "panspermea", claiming life came from elsewhere in outer space... fine - where did THAT life come from, then?
Gould suggested "punctuated equilibria", claiming that evolution happened in short bursts rather than as a long process. His theory arose, not because of new evidence he discovered, but because of the overwhelming LACK of evidence in the fossil record. On and on it goes, and the masses blindly follow.
Evolution is opposed by scientific laws, observable facts, and common sense. When I look at a house it doesn't take much faith to believe someone with intelligence put it together. You would call me a moron, rightly so, if I pointed to a house and said it happened all on its own, through unproven scientific processes nobody actually saw happening. The world, the human body, etc... are far more complex than a house.
There is no faith needed to comprehend science. A great deal of faith is required, however, to accept the theory of evolution, which opposes proven scientific principles. - MadOtaku, on 06/28/2008, -0/+11I didn't bother reading your whole post after your first paragraph was so laughably wrong. You gave a sorta-***** explanation of a particular theory of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a REALLY young, developing science and is nowhere near evolution in terms of how concrete it is.
Edit: I skimmed over your post and here's a rebuttal of your bulleted points:
*Transitional fossils do exist; feel free to look it up.
*Thermodynamics refers to the physics of energy and energy transfer, not biology. Furthermore, it only applies to closed systems that are not experiencing any net-changes in energy (our sun excludes Earth from that)
Your last two have nothing to do with evolution and are critiques of abiogenesis. - UltraDavid, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1"The job is to drag this misbegotten den of self-righteous ignorance into at least the 20th century."
And I can tell you hate self-righteousness! Ding!
Nah, but yeah, I'm totally with ya.
- Kral, on 06/28/2008, -0/+9That sounds like work - can't we just wait for them to declare modern medicine heresy and have this solve itself?
- loveandrockets, on 06/28/2008, -2/+22The only way this will change is when reputable Universities start not accepting kids from Louisiana en masse stating that their science education is "completely wrong." Then influential parents will contact their influential friends and get this stupidity reversed.
- rz8472, on 06/28/2008, -0/+12The irony is that Jindal graduated from Brown University with a degree in Biology - one of the very few in politics to have a science degree at all.
- Thefatheroftime, on 06/28/2008, -0/+16"Stupid is as stupid does." - a smarter man than Bobby Jindal.
- idontlikeyou2, on 06/28/2008, -2/+8Here is a thought to all those people that don't believe in evolution, be consistent in your belief and refuse all medical treatment, and next time when you get sick just pray. If anyone think there is no real world application for evolution in medicine or biology, you're truely blinded by your "faith"
- Vergil117, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5I'm from the backwards state of Louisiana (joined the navy as one of the sole reasons to get out of it). The state has always been in the past so I don't see this law as anything new, not that schools are worth a damn in LA to begin with.
- whyknot2k, on 06/28/2008, -12/+0Great job, all of you, on being so mindlessly committed to your faith in evolutionary theory that any mention of questioning it throws you into a panic. Great idea, only presenting one side of the argument and ignoring the facts opposing your faith - that's real scientific.
- ichbeineinrcg, on 06/28/2008, -0/+12whyknot2k: There are no facts that don't support evolution.
None.
Not a single damned one.
There's conjecture and supposition and creationist propoganda dressed up as something more than the crap that it is, and you've apparently been eating that crap with a spoon. That's great for you, and I wish you well at dinnertime, but the arguments for the creationist "science" are all *****, and no matter how many times you flip that cowpie it's still going to stink on the other side. - UltraDavid, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4"Great idea, only presenting one side of the argument and ignoring the facts opposing your faith."
Hey, whyknot? ...two thousand? - whyknot2k, on 06/28/2008, -11/+0okay, ich??? here it is again...
Let's walk through the claims of evolution:
in an unknown time;
in an unknown place;
in an unknown liquid;
under an unknown atmosphere;
some unknown chemicals got together;
through an unknown process;
created some unknown life forms.
And THAT, my friends, is evolutionary theory in a nutshell. Sure sounds like science to me! If it's credibility you are looking for, you should look elsewhere than evolutionary theory.
The unproven idea that all life evolved by chance from a single-celled organism is NOT scientific.
* there are no transitional links and intermediate forms in the fossil record or the modern world - were evolution true, we would find new ones daily;
* the second law of thermodynamics makes it clear that order does not arise out of disorder;
* the law of biogenesis tells us that life can only come from pre-existing life;
* and the law of spontaneous generation states that life cannot come from non-life.
In response to these facts, evolutionists propose ridiculous theories like "panspermea", claiming life came from elsewhere in outer space... fine - where did THAT life come from, then?
Gould suggested "punctuated equilibria", claiming that evolution happened in short bursts rather than as a long process. His theory arose, not because of new evidence he discovered, but because of the overwhelming LACK of evidence in the fossil record. On and on it goes, and the masses blindly follow.
Evolution is opposed by scientific laws, observable facts, and common sense. When I look at a house it doesn't take much faith to believe someone with intelligence put it together. You would call me a moron, rightly so, if I pointed to a house and said it happened all on its own, through unproven scientific processes nobody actually saw happening. The world, the human body, etc... are far more complex than a house.
There is no faith needed to comprehend science. A great deal of faith is required, however, to accept the theory of evolution, which opposes proven scientific principles. - zeabu, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2repeating stupidity doesn't turn it right. Give me one single prove evolution is wrong. A proof.
- ichbeineinrcg, on 06/28/2008, -0/+12whyknot2k: There are no facts that don't support evolution.
- remccain, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1Once again, I am proud to be a citizen of the Great and Enlightened State of Louisiana.
- whyknot2k, on 06/28/2008, -5/+0you should be. Gov. Jindal has the stones to stand up to these lefties, unlike McCain.
- UltraDavid, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Left and right don't have anything to do with pro- or anti-science.
- zeabu, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2There is no direct connection, true.
But the dumber people, the less they understand about the world. The less knowledge they have, the more gaps are filled with "god".
And:
The dumber people are, the more they're vulnarable to racism, and populism. Racism and populism are right-wing.
Direct connection, no. Indirect, yes. - remccain, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Perhaps I should have added a /sarcasm thingie or two after my comment, since diggers seem unable to tell the difference between a tongue-in-cheek comment and an utterance of genuine thanks.
- MarcusJMcLean, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4I ***** hate people.
- remccain, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1The more people I get to know, the more antisocial I become.
- LouCypher, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Welcome to American Inquisition era
- SuperWinner, on 06/28/2008, -3/+35At least they were the first state to invent time travel...
- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -9/+154"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens"
'Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain'
Friedrich Schiller- pintomp3, on 06/28/2008, -3/+29digg's favorite candidate:
"evolution is a theory and i don't accept it"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw- Kristijan12, on 06/28/2008, -5/+21Ron Paul doesn`t believe in evolution?
Thats very dissapointing. - geoboy, on 06/28/2008, -16/+3Lesson of the day: nobody's perfect. But he was still the best presidential candidate this country had for the 2008 election. It's too bad so many uptight atheists turned on him.
- Kristijan12, on 06/28/2008, -5/+21Ron Paul doesn`t believe in evolution?
- lostlyrics, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3"It's time for the Human Race
to enter the Solar System." ... GWB - Tr3mulant, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5These people are politicizing science and are doing real damge to people's understanding of the scientific process. They are giving kids the fals impression that anything goes in science, despite not having sufficient evidence. It's teaching kids that it's ok to disregard facts that are inconvenient to one's religious or political predilections.
This whole "teach the controversy" crap is ludicrous. There is no controversy amongst scientists about evolution or global warming. Both are very real and supported by evidence. Even for genuine scientifc debates, kids don't have the scientific understanding to be able to make sense of what they're being taught and of the merits of each position. Those need to be settled in the scientific arena by experts. I fully expect to see a torrent of lawsuits that will overturn this law.
- pintomp3, on 06/28/2008, -3/+29digg's favorite candidate:
- Ravenlark, on 06/27/2008, -9/+106Truth is constant. Ignorance is constanter.
- fr3ddie, on 06/28/2008, -1/+5This article prompted me to immediately purchase one of these...
http://www.cafepress.com/irregulargoods.16391660 - culbeda, on 06/28/2008, -1/+4Dugg for the irony of mocking Louisiana's school / legal system with the "word" "constanter".
- MaynardsTool, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Dugg for giving me my new favorite quote.
- fr3ddie, on 06/28/2008, -1/+5This article prompted me to immediately purchase one of these...
- Sulzer, on 06/27/2008, -82/+5note that this is merely criticism to improve critical thinking, not to teach from the perspective that the ideas are wrong. while the bill's intentions are pure, there is no doubt this will be severely abused to force beliefs on children unless strict borders are set in place and fast... i'm just glad that i've already finished my secondary education
- Archer007, on 06/27/2008, -2/+65RTFA... A company that wants to push it's pro-ID books helped WRITE the bill.
- zeabu, on 06/29/2008, -2/+2They not "helped". They wrote....
- greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -2/+35Gee, somehow we learned critical thinking without needing preposterous and absurd ideologies being taught.
Instead they have created a fail safe mechanism for stifling critical thinking because it cannot survive in an environment where those ideologies are taught. Those naturally inclined to critical thought will rebel and be chewed up and the rest will be cowed.- GJBlizzard, on 06/28/2008, -22/+2How is offering multiple ideas on a subject "stifling critical thinking?"
- Archer007, on 06/28/2008, -10/+3Facism ftw??
- greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -0/+27"How is offering multiple ideas on a subject "stifling critical thinking?"
Putting religion into a classroom as science and punishing any child who questions the obvious contradiction while rewarding those who mindlessly lap it up hardly encourages critical thinking, does it? or thinking at all for that matter. - greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -1/+24To expand - if there was actually going to be introduction of other scientific theories then it would be a great idea, but the cited examples says it all. There are no credible competing scientific theories for either evolution or climate change. Intelligent Design and Denierism are religion, not science.
Hell, if you allow them you cannot even teach what the definition of science actually is because by definition they are excluded. Wait see what happens to the kid who points that out - you imagine she will be rewarded for critical thinking? - arvvvs, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5I'm all for different perspectives but I think that the bill was meant to WIPE out evolution, allowing teachers to teach their own Intelligent Design theory, and make it safe.
For that reason I do not support it. This not meant to encourage open mindness. - GJBlizzard, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2I understand everyone's reasoning here and I agree with pretty much all of it. I am a teacher as well as a Christian. With that being said I don't think Intelligent Design should be taught in science at all or in the elementary/middle school grades. I think it could be offered as an elective in high school for kids who are curious about the whole debate.
But, offering kids different opinions and different ideas, whether they are wrong or not, never stifles critical thinking; that's what we are all doing right now: critical thinking.
- paulisnotdead, on 06/28/2008, -1/+58Seriously? You're going to take that route? The goal of this bill was to re-introduce religion into schools, which is not critical thinking, it's replacing things with bad answers. Saying that a mystical force did something is NOT science. Not until we have dissected every aspect of that mystical force, until it is not longer mystic.
I hate this kind of crap. If you want religion go to a goddamn church. Stay the ***** out of the educational system otherwise you'll make this place a third world country.- 47f0, on 06/28/2008, -0/+17greenthumbgreenthumbgreenthumb - damn thing is broken.
If you look at the most *****-up, backward, regressive, oppressive, misogynistic, violent countries, the number of theocracies is stunning. The only reason these child-abusing pricks don't like the Taliban is because it's not Christian. Other than that, they think it's a great idea. - greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10You know 47f0, that is an excellent insight. I had never thought of it, but those most virulently anti-muslim and paranoid about the Taliban and Al Queda would indeed be peeing their pants with excitement if those were actually Christian organizations (in name anway).
Conversely, if these islamophobes were themselves Muslim they would be the ones who formed the backbone of these organizations. - zeabu, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Greenfyre. I'm glad you acquired the insight, but be honest, only right now? How many years are the States in Iraq, right now?
- 47f0, on 06/28/2008, -0/+17greenthumbgreenthumbgreenthumb - damn thing is broken.
- mithrasinvictus, on 06/28/2008, -1/+22I'm all for critical thinking. Like when your methods of worship force you to deny reality you are doing it wrong.
- vvargoal, on 06/28/2008, -0/+16Criticism is all well and good, but having high school kids take uninformed potshots at evolution is not criticism, it's ignorance. You can't form an even close to valid argument against evolution at that level, with an extremely basic grasp of biology and chemistry. If you want the true aim of that legislation, just look at the specific topics. Human cloning? Come on.
- mithrasinvictus, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7Cloning could be discussed in ethics class, along with creationism.
- arvvvs, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2The science of cloning should be taught in science
the ethics in Ethics class. And something occured to me.
How do you teach creationism in several classes? Its basically God does everything, no questions.
- nylrym, on 06/28/2008, -1/+8Read the article. It's a bill designed to undermine accepted scientific teaching on a specific set of political talking points. The 'critical thinking' language is just a blind.
- Yage2006, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3"critical thinking"
Funny you mention that because if you study critical thinking you see all the logical fallacy's in the ID anti-evolution camp.
How about we just teach critical thinking to all kids before they are too old and let them decide. - qazxsw2, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2Good science absolutely demands critical thinking - it does not need a stupid law.
Only ***** masquerading as science needs a law to defend itself
It really infuriates me that the very people who insist that religion is the only path to good morals routinely use the most underhand, deceitful and manipulative methods to get their way. The hypocrisy is just staggering.
- Archer007, on 06/27/2008, -2/+65RTFA... A company that wants to push it's pro-ID books helped WRITE the bill.
- protogenxl, on 06/27/2008, -8/+268"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." -Isaac Asimov
- empiric, on 06/28/2008, -30/+0To surrender to non sequiturs and begging-the-question has always been premature as well.
But, hey, it's Digg. Direct, clear, fully and formally invalid logical fallacies will always get Dugg up so long as they support atheism, even as the Digger has complete unqualified awareness of his own direct intellectual dishonesty as he mods it up. Par for the course.- lamiaconfitor, on 06/28/2008, -0/+12Yeah, and being a dick is formally called an ad hominem attack. Guess what? You suck ass. Oh no! I committed a logical fallacy! (ps; I know big words too!)
- BlacklabelSAR, on 06/28/2008, -0/+19Just because one believes in Evolution, one should not be assumed an athiest. That would not be logical, would it?
- Phyraxus, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10Evolution =/= Atheism
"To surrender to non sequiturs and begging-the-question has always been premature as well." = Theism - empiric, on 06/28/2008, -2/+0@lamiaconfitor: Learn how logical fallacies work. If I had claimed a particular premise is incorrect because of the nature of the person claiming that premise, that would be a ad hominem. Making a negative standalone factual observation, is not an ad hominem. If I say the average Digger is a fully self-aware liar, that in itself is an assertion. There is no initial premise here that I'm claiming is demonstrated false by inference by that assertion.
@BlacklabelSar, Phyraxus: Where did "evolution" come into this? The replied-to quote is directly anti-theistic, attacking it regardless of one's stance relative to evolution. - Phyraxus, on 06/29/2008, -0/+4Sure empiric, you're right, you in no way mentioned evolution, however my comment describing evolution is not equal to atheism still applies.
"To surrender to non sequiturs and begging-the-question..." has always been the theist's job and always will be so long as they decide to believe things in which there is no evidence.
You may be able to attack strong atheism (i.e. 100% sure there is no god), and rightfully so, but to say that all the evidence that man has acquired thus far doesn't point to a NEAR 100% chance is ludicrous. (You did not adequately state what position you are attacking when you merely describe it as "atheism" as atheism means many things. As such, most atheists today would claim themselves as atheists but in no way would say that there is a 100% chance that no god exists since you cannot prove a negative.) - lamiaconfitor, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1To empiric, the thing that really proves you are an idiot, is the fact that you didn't realize I was setting up a joke. even after (I assume) reading my post completely. Most importantly, my point is that Pretending you are intelligent is no replacement for being intelligent.
- invinciblechunk, on 06/28/2008, -2/+3"I shall not cause harm to any vehicle nor the personal contents thereof, nor through inaction, let that vehicle or the personal contents thereof come to harm."
- chukd, on 06/28/2008, -8/+1I fail to see why questioning a theory is a bad thing. Where would the state of science be if people went along with the Ancient Greek version of science. The earth would be the center of the universe, for one. We know this not to be true. The Earth is flat. This is also not true.
By questioning a theory and practicing some critical thinking, we add to the theory, possibly making it a scientific law. Or, we find the real answers. There is no harm in questioning the norms of society and science.- Phyraxus, on 06/28/2008, -0/+13They are "questioning" it by saying, "Nuhh uhh... Goddidit," which doesn't help advance the theory or human knowledge in any way.
- chukd, on 06/28/2008, -5/+1"The bill would allow local school boards to approve supplemental classroom materials specifically for the critique of scientific theories"
This does not say not teach the other theories. It adds supplemental material of a differing viewpoint. I firmly believe this would only strengthen the theories which it tries to discard.
Science is filled with critiquing other people's theory. It is part of the field. This is why we have peer reviews. The material they pick may not be someone of a scientific background but it does not make what they believe less real to themselves. Again, the earth was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, ... . There is nothing wrong with questioning. - Phyraxus, on 06/28/2008, -0/+9The supplemental material of a differing viewpoint is that of intelligent design, which is just creationism in a cheap tux. These are not legitimate scientific critiques on the theory of evolution. Why do you think that every scientific organization spoke out against the bill?
"Again, the earth was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, ... . There is nothing wrong with questioning."
Yeah, but when everyone already knows that the earth is a sphere (because there is evidence for it) and you have some other guys saying that it is flat (with no evidence), who are you going to believe? What benefit is there in throwing this out there if not to get children confused about science? - chukd, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1@ Phyraxus
You just proved my point. By placing creationism right next to Evolution, it is my belief that most students would realize how absolutely moronic creationism/intelligent design is. This will in turn defeat the idea that the school boards want to promote. You place the idea of Dinosaurs and Humans living together next to the obvious, well researched idea, evolution. Evolution wins. Let them do this because it will turn more people to evolution than it will to intelligent design. There will always be a segment of the population that will refuse to believe but the better theory will win.
Out of humanity, you should realize the more you try to hide one segment of society, the more interest there is in it. By shoving the counter ideas out of site, it only promotes research into it. It gives it credibility. Bring these ideas out into the open, show how stupid they are. Intelligent people will see the truth. - eir574, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10"By placing creationism right next to Evolution, it is my belief that most students would realize how absolutely moronic creationism/intelligent design is."
The only way that can work is if teachers do a decent job of presenting evolutionary theory and help students understand the flaws of intelligent design. But, there are certainly teachers who will say things like, "Adam and Eve weren't monkeys" as proof that evolution must be wrong. They'll teach intelligent design while denigrating evolution. I wish I were just making this up, but I heard that "Adam and Eve weren't monkeys" line actually come out of a biology teacher's mouth (in her role as a teacher, in front of students) on a documentary not too long ago.
Part of the problem with intelligent design is that it appeals to people who just want easy answers. It's an appeal to incredulity. Life is complicated, so it must have had a designer. It appeals to so called common sense, and it's easy for people who want to believe it to choose to do so. I agree with you that examining intelligent design in a classroom can help defeat it, but only if it's done properly. I'm not sure this bill will actually achieve that, or if it allows school boards to buy Discovery Institute textbooks and teach intelligent design as if it really is a scientific theory. - chukd, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1@ eir574
I agree, there are people that teach with biases. This happens with politics, science, and history. Unfortunately, you had one of these teachers that was unwilling to change their mind, but you saw the teacher for the close minded person they were. I do have to ask to you see my overall point on the subject.
Questioning theories is a good thing. Questioning ideas does two things, it gets rid of a bad idea and it supports a good idea. While you all digg me down, you aren't looking at the argument I am making. The Earth was considered the center of the universe. They had "evidence" in support of it. It turned out to be wrong. This was an idea that was over a 1000 years old, it was set in stone as fact. Questioning the idea turned out to set humanity on the right path. This also works with the Earth is flat idea. Questioning supports critical thinking and new ideas. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/28/2008, -0/+9@chukd: The problem is that they will not be presented in fair manor. Intelligent design will be presented as a twisting and confusion of the facts of evolution. It has to be, since intelligent design makes no sense from a real scientific perspective. So the point here is not to present to different viewpoints. It's about confusing kids with misinformation in order to push your agenda as an ID proponent. That's a real problem.
- eir574, on 06/28/2008, -0/+8@chukd,
I agree that questioning theories as a good thing. However, teaching intelligent design != questioning theories. Is there any law in Louisiana that prevents teachers from asking their students to question theories and talk about those aspects of evolutionary theory that are controversial? I sincerely doubt it.
(Just as a clarification, I didn't personally have a teacher who misinterpreted evolution and/or taught intelligent design. I've seen a video from a classroom where that did happen, though.)
- empiric, on 06/28/2008, -30/+0To surrender to non sequiturs and begging-the-question has always been premature as well.
- BlankVerse, on 06/27/2008, -4/+66From the article: "The bill would allow local school boards to approve supplemental classroom materials specifically for the critique of scientific theories..."
Scientists should use the law by creating lesson plans and student booklets that can be downloaded from the internet that shows how robust evolution is, and how inappropriate the application of the non-theory of [Un]Intelligent Design is to the understanding of biology. Local citizens and organizations should then ask the local school boards to approve the use that material created by the scientists as supplemental classroom material. Let's make it so that the law backfires on those who voted for it.- greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -2/+11Lot of work there dude, but good luck with it
- obliviousfool, on 06/28/2008, -0/+42I'm guessing that the local school boards are probably just as backward as the state legislature.
- Zarokima, on 06/28/2008, -0/+33They are. DeSoto Parish schools get a week-long break in the fall so the superintendent can go hunting with his son. I really wish I was making this up, but unfortunately people down here are ***** pants-on-head retarded.
- 47f0, on 06/28/2008, -0/+19"God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board."
-- Mark Twain
Never more true than today. - nedy78, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6They also get a week off of school for Mardi Gras. My girlfriend went to school in Louisiana and the public school system is amongst the worst in the U.S. Their Magnet system, where she went to school is better, but still behind. The amount of corruption on all levels of government in Louisiana is truly amazing.
- djholybolt, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Zarokima, are you admitting you live in the dee-dee-dee state of 2008?
- Suricou, on 06/28/2008, -0/+17It doesn't work like that. You assume that the school boards and science teachers are attempting to persue the facts, and will honestly evaluate the relative scientific merit of the arguments placed before them. This is incorrect: While it is true for some, for a very large number of those involved evolution is not and never will be acceptable to them because they see it as in opposition to God. It doesn't matter how good a scientific argument you present: If they view evolution as evil, they will simply not include the well-written material in it's defence in lesson plans, while instead devoting the time to any creationist material they can find regardless of it's scientific merit or academic integrity.
- emkaysmith, on 06/28/2008, -0/+9Absolutely true in Louisiana. Fundamentalist school board members all over the state -- especially in the Protestant north -- are salivating to introduce the King James version of science. The parents want it that way, too, so no one's going to argue with them. The Tangipahoa Parish school board has been in court almost constantly for a decade for continuing to issue official Bibles to students and for organizing religious indoctrination sessions in their schools. Is it any wonder such a large percentage of college graduates here leave the state and never come back?
- arvvvs, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Remember that teacher who was fired for doing "wizandry"
when it was a simple magical trick. This is how stupid people are.
- NecroSexy, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6"Academic freedom" is a euphemism for arbitrariness.
- Suricou, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1The academic freedom bill can be defined thus: "All ideas are to be considered equally valid, but some are more equal than others."
- Fordi, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1I've said the same thing before: teach 'both' theories - that is, teach evolution for the accepted theory it is, and teach ID as how science is NOT done, with its full creationist history in view.
- ed54, on 06/29/2008, -4/+1Nobody is trying to introduce any ID or Creationism into the schools. That would just be stupid. They're just trying to get rid of what they think is not proven and shouldn't be taught because it is controversial.
- jpop, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2No, they're doing everything they can to attack the competition since they can't get ID or Creationism into the schools.
- beesaretasty, on 06/27/2008, -48/+6Fish evolved from humans who were just clones of martians before they went extinct because because despite their best efforts they found that it was impossible to warm the earth enough to sustain them.
- Fordi, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2Dugg for hyperbolic sarcasm.
But you're forgetting the bit about the Jovian Lizards. - JulyZerg, on 06/28/2008, -2/+1They'd have to COOL the earth... Lemme guess, you learned "god did it" in science, so now you can't even get your facts straight.
- beesaretasty, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2That part of the statement was playing it up to global warming being impossible. Nice try though. If you read it and thought "hey this guy is a good christian", you obviously don't understand sarcasm. You think Mars was always as cool as it is now?
- zeabu, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1As I've stated a few times already. A lot of people don't understand sarcasm if it lacks a sarcasm-tag.
If in doubt of wether it's sarcasm or not, people should learn to open a profile.
Dugg you up beesaretasty.
- Fordi, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2Dugg for hyperbolic sarcasm.
- chrisvc86, on 06/27/2008, -6/+174So this company Discovery is helping to write and push this Bill, so they can sell their text books to the school systems? Conflict of interests much?
I hope similar legislature doesn't pass in Florida like they are suggesting, the public school systems here are bad enough.
Keep your religious ***** out of our schools, conservatives. Next time you need ***** surgery or some medicine, you should be denied because you are trying to kill the very science that's saving your ass.- Netwatcher, on 06/28/2008, -1/+19But if they can't get children to buy this *****, how hell are they gonna force it on full grown adults?
I mean.... come on.... be pal. These guys are in a bind.
I mean honestly, Noah's Ark? The Garden of Eden? Tower of Babel?
Most seven year olds won't believe this *****. How the hell are they going to believe in "Jonah and the Whale", if you don't give them a chance to brain wash kids while they're still young. - 47f0, on 06/28/2008, -1/+39It was a ***** born-again "doctor" (and I use the term "doctor" very loosely) that consistently misdiagnosed my son's lymphoma, while lecturing me as to why the kids weren't in vacation bible camp. If your faith matters more than your profession, maybe it's time to be honest, and just join the clergy.
- davepascoe, on 06/28/2008, -0/+29sue the prick, get him dismissed.
pharmacists are the same - fighting for the right to withhold contraceptive medicine if they disagree with the morals of it, and unfortunately in some cases winning.
- davepascoe, on 06/28/2008, -0/+29sue the prick, get him dismissed.
- davepascoe, on 06/28/2008, -0/+16Indeed, the less patient part of me wishes medicine would be renamed 'evolution-based medicine' or something, so that the idiots would remove themselves from the gene pool.
Unfortunately, it's more likely the children would suffer. Just look how retarded some Catholics are in opposing the HPV vaccine - they would rather have their daughters die of cervical cancer than take the chance of making them think sex is okay by promoting a STD vaccine. - Snokage, on 06/28/2008, -8/+2personally i wish they wouldn't teach origins of where we came from. or how we got here, just the history we know. not some theory evolution or that the bible is truth, why can't we just not teach either of them and let the parents tell it to their kids.
- dysfunction, on 06/28/2008, -0/+16Because one is science, and so inherently belongs in a science class. You really expect them not to teach legitimate science because it steps on your religious toes?
- Neiby, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10The theory of evolution doesn't deal with the origins of life. That is abiogenesis.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 06/28/2008, -0/+8Because that leaves out Science. In fact, that is the opposite of science. Information handed from one person to the next, from generation to generation without innovation? Where is progress? Not only that, but the game called "telephone" illustrates how information passed by word of mouth is not duplicated, but changed along it's path. That is human imperfection.
And could your parents teach you about biology, and mathmatics, and physics? So what you are suggesting is that a child only learn to the degree that it's parent is able to teach and knows.
The scientific principle that give us our medicines, flight, etc, is the same principle that leads us to the Scientific Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Sci ...
"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable."
of Evolution. - Snokage, on 06/28/2008, -2/+1evolution =/= science.
evolution is about how we can to be, how we, evolved from whatever it is we came from...
science is like....when element x is mixed with element Y you get element B.
@dysfunction
um you mean since religion can't say anything you have the right to? if no group can't teach what it believes no one should be able to, you can;t have a double standard, what I was trying to say, was that instead of teaching that the earth is millions of years old, just say since mankind started to keep records, or something to that effect, and leave it to the parents/kids to decide what they want to believe.
you ***** evolutionists act as if you been ***** persecuted since day one which is *****. and since no one can prove either side i don't see how one could be taught over the other. instead of fighting over what should be taught why not let the parents of the kid decide, i know that's alot more work then most parents do, but lets face it, parents today are ***** retarded and don't give two ***** about their kids.
also lets face it, religous arguements on the internet are ***** lame, all arguements end the same way, two people just talking ***** about each other. - Linzee82, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3@Snokage - "science is like....when element x is mixed with element Y you get element B."
I'm not a scientist or anything major like that but I believe that you just referred to chemistry. Science in the big "umbrella" that encompasses chemistry, biology, ecology, etc. So yes, you are correct, but you seem to miss the point that "science" encompasses many different fields of study.
We aren't saying you don't have the right to say anything, we just want to make sure we don't confuse children about what science is. At the current point in time, there is no scientific evidence for ID. It's up to the believers to provide evidence and once they have it, we'll look at it.
You're right that we can't prove without a doubt one side or the other, but we have mountains of evidence that point to evolution. If you choose to disregard those, not much I can do for you.
Our main battle here is the integrity of science. We don't want children to think that there are certain ideas out there that are accepted as scientific fact when they aren't. We want them to understand the scientific method and what is considered science. Other than that, we don't care what they believe, just that they understand what is "science".
- x252, on 06/28/2008, -1/+11Conservative here:
Obviously since we are all aligned with the same political philosophy means we're all crazy religious nut jobs, amirite?
Since i'm giong to get buried anyway, i might as well say it. I'm christian, and i'm tired of being lumped into the same group as bible thumpers. Believe it or not, i live in the south, and every religious person isn't hoisting a sign that says "REPENT OR BURN." Every religious person i know doesn't think the earth is 6,000 years old. Every religious person i know is in more presitious state or private colleges and doing quite fine.
Where the digg idea of "If you're a conservative christian you obviously want to brainwash the poor democratic youth of america" comes from i'll never know.
It's the 21st century guys: believe it or not, the south doesn't have horse drawn buggies and slaves anymore. The south has some of the biggest centers for learning, knowledge and research in the union.
Pull your head out of the sand and stop thinking your neighbors to the south are inferior or stupid because they practice a religion which you obviously see as horrible, terrible thing. Unless you're catholic or southern baptist, i know of no sects of Christianity that preach ignorance and paranoia.
Wake up.- davepascoe, on 06/28/2008, -2/+5whenever I come across people like yourself who claim to 'not be one of the crazies', I find you are either lying about believing in Christianity or about not being crazy.
Whether you actually believe in 6000 year old Earth or whatever isn't so important, but what you believe about the nature of the universe.
basically, if you believe God can break the laws of physics, you are a 'crazy'. but if you don't believe he can, what kind of God is that?
another question; does God actually intervene in the day to day lives of people e.g. answering prayers. again, if yes you are a crazy, if no you aren't a theist.
Claiming you are a Christian but don't believe in creationism and that that makes you 'saner' is like claiming you believe in astrology but just not parts about having to marry someone of a specific star sign. You believe in the crazy (and just plain wrong) world view even if you don't buy into every single idea.
If you believe in ANY religious claim (surely you believe in the resurrection for example?) then you really are just as 'crazy' as a creationist (in fact the resurrection is one of the worst ones because it's an event in the past with no reliable historical records so there is literally NO way to know about it).
On the other hand, at least people like yourself tend to be 'better' in real terms than the creationists etc. - x252, on 06/28/2008, -6/+2lol, different interpretations of the bible.
whenever I come across people like yourself who claim to 'not be one of the crazies', I find you are either lying about believing in nothing or about not being crazy.
Whether you actually believe in 6 billion year old Earth or whatever isn't so important, but what you believe about the nature of the universe.
basically, if you believe that every single form of life came from a primordial pool of strains of protein, which, only a 'short' time before that came from every piece of matter in the known universe crammed into something so small that we can't comprehend all by itself, then how did we get here, exactly?
another question; does God actually intervene in the day to day lives of people e.g. answering prayers. again, if yes you have a different interpretation of the bible,, if no you then you have another.
Claiming you are 'sane' by fact that you believe we came from a huge bang caused simply by the ball of stuff that exploded being too massive to exist in almost no space is crazy and just plain wrong. Where did this stuff come form to begin with?
If you believe that everything happened by coincidence (surely you believe in the evolution for example?) then you really are just as 'crazy' as a bible thumper (in fact abiogenesis is one of the worst ones because it's an event in the past with no reliable historical records so there is literally NO way to know about it).
I took out the last line cause you're the kind of douchebag that insists on making a scene everywhere somebody some something religious.
that being said, go ***** yourself. - davepascoe, on 06/28/2008, -2/+5@x252
lol, how pathetic.
yeah, me getting my opinions based on evidence and logic and thinking they're the best ideas currently available is the same as religious people getting there ideas from "the bible/my priest just says so" and thinking its the absolute truth.
*rollseyes*
>that being said, go ***** yourself.
how quickly your facade crumbles. - x252, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2"the bible/my priest just says so"
As i said originally, the only people that do this are the people that are too poor/etc to receive a higher education in the first place.
The whole purpose of the protestant reformation was to think for yourself.
Some of the greatest minds in the history of the world have been protestant or catholic.
Because you're so hypocritical and narrow minded and can't see any other way besides your "THERE IS NO GOD" argument doesn't mean that there isn't a God nor that you are right. - davepascoe, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3@x252
lol, the reformation was about the corruption of the Catholic chuch, and only about thinking for yourself in the sense that now you get your ideas from our priests rather than the pope.
some of the greatest minds probably realised that since admitting to be an atheist could get you killed, imprisoned or at the very least remove any chance of reasonable employment, being honest about your beliefs isn't always the best thing. plus, since when does 'a clever person thought it' have anything to do with truth. Newton believed in alchemy (maybe you do too if you believe in transubstantiation).
how many of the greatest minds alive today believe in Christianity? the trend is clear; atheism is by far the most prevalent position among the more educated and successful members of society. these are statistical facts. (also, atheists are significantly less likely to go to jail and have lower divorce rates, making the moral/family arguments largely moot).
tell me this; if people who take the bible etc. literally are just mistaken, in what sense SHOULD the bible be interpreted? is Jesus himself a metaphor or something? is salvation and heaven a real, physical thing that actually exists, or simply an idea that is useful for this life now?
if you accept the conclusions of biblical scholars that there is no compelling evidence for the historicity of Jesus, then who or what do you actually worship and where do you get your information from if not the bible?
I'd genuinely appreciate as much information as possible about what precisely you believe in, and what goes on. because to be honest, you guys give the impression of flipping about all over the place and can't be tied down.
for example, if the bible is not literally true, then is Jesus not literally God? this is usually the point where Christians start arbitrarily deciding what parts to believe are literal and what are metaphor. that in itself would not be a problem if you would just let us know on what basis you decide what is literal and what is metaphorical (the practical answer seems to be whatever you can get away with or suits your needs at that particular time). - pagno, on 06/29/2008, -2/+2Sorry to break up the love fest...
Im agnostic, so I kind of sit in the middle of all these religious debates, but most just view me as atheist, which makes me "un-American", as [y]our President says, but anyway. None of you can prove that either side is right. Period. Maybe they should just take the whole thing out of the schools, and not teach evolution or creation or any other theory about our beginnings. That would piss both sides off equally, but since no one can prove a Goddamn thing(no pun intended), it doesnt matter. Point being, God and religion have NO PLACE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS!
For the record, Im from the Texas, and I am, hands down, a minority in my views. Everyone I know is Christian, blindly pro-McBush, and would probably support evolution being taught in schools(I havent asked them). - zeabu, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1The Big Bang was not the start of the universe. Scientists like S. Hawking think it is a wave (like a micro-wave).
It's just, we have a very hard time imagining "infinity", in specific when we're talking about a timeline.
- davepascoe, on 06/28/2008, -2/+5whenever I come across people like yourself who claim to 'not be one of the crazies', I find you are either lying about believing in Christianity or about not being crazy.
- staticfire, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2public school in florida is a ***** joke. i had the pleasure of going through kindergarten through12th at them. the sad part is many of the classes kids are still too dumb to pass.
- Netwatcher, on 06/28/2008, -1/+19But if they can't get children to buy this *****, how hell are they gonna force it on full grown adults?
- ryan83189, on 06/28/2008, -3/+29If you don't want your kid to learn evolution or the origin of life, then buy then earphones conveniently shaped like the tips of index fingers, and blast the sound of them humming, and screaming "I can't hear you" to wear whenever evolution will be discussed.
- MattBD, on 06/28/2008, -0/+25Anyone who doesn't want their kid to learn about evolution is lining them up to be an ignorant idiot for the rest of their life, and is a ***** parent.
- OffPiste, on 06/28/2008, -13/+2Yep because being taught the theory of evolution is so important to the lives of carpenters, masons,UPS drivers, mechanics, accountants, policemen, soldiers, IT specialists, copy-machine repair guys, ballers, etc...
Think of how these people's lives would be dramatically different if they hadn't been taught evolution.
The truth is, like so many other things taught in (high) school, poetry meter, factoring polynomials, balancing chemical equations, the Bayeux Tapestry, light optics, the overwhelming majority of people have no use for this information in their professional, familial, or mundane daily lives. I would have no problem with having my kids skip classes on evolution. If they are smart enough to go to college then they'll get this info in college. Let's keep K-12 focused on topics that people will actually use and NEED in their daily lives.
Lastly from a fundamental right of the people, curricula needs to be responsive the wants and desires of the PUBLIC. We pay the bills, we provide the resources, it is our community. I don't care if they are teaching something scientifically inaccurate, or curricula that is not supported by the scientific community, IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY OR YOUR KIDS! - sugarazor, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7"I don't care if they are teaching something scientifically inaccurate, or curricula that is not supported by the scientific community"
And this is why America ranks below the rest of the modern world in education. - elint6, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3@ sugarazor: Agreed. I'm getting sick and tired of people thinking I must be an uneducated fool just because I carry an American passport. It's all because of people like OffPiste
- OffPiste, on 06/28/2008, -13/+2Yep because being taught the theory of evolution is so important to the lives of carpenters, masons,UPS drivers, mechanics, accountants, policemen, soldiers, IT specialists, copy-machine repair guys, ballers, etc...
- MattBD, on 06/28/2008, -0/+25Anyone who doesn't want their kid to learn about evolution is lining them up to be an ignorant idiot for the rest of their life, and is a ***** parent.
- Varz, on 06/28/2008, -4/+192One small step backwards for man, one GIANT leap backwards for the state of Louisiana.
I have to laugh at this quote:
"assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories." Anyone with an ounce of skill in critical thinking can absolutely, objectively dismiss Intelligent Design as religious pseudoscience.
I think the followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster need get involved, just like they did when the Kansas board of education was verging on including this BS in their curriculum.- GJBlizzard, on 06/28/2008, -34/+4"Anyone with an ounce of skill in critical thinking can absolutely, objectively dismiss Intelligent Design as religious pseudoscience."
Then why is this "one small step backwards for man?"- greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -3/+31Children are vulnerable, that's why the fundies went after them
- Varz, on 06/28/2008, -1/+34Because kids don't have the fundamental skills in logic and critical thinking, these are skills they go to school to actually learn. If they're going to start teaching religion in science class then maybe they should also learn about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Koran and the obscure beliefs of some tribe in Africa. Science is about objectively understanding reality (you know, understanding through actual evidence and facts), if they're going to start teaching religion in science classes then they're undermining the principle foundation of science.
- Phyraxus, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Religion is like smoking, you gotta hook em while they're young.
- brokencrystal, on 06/28/2008, -39/+3Since when has challenging/criticizing ANY theory been a bad thing? Here is an excellent example of our need for a better education.
- ConAmoreEFuoco, on 06/28/2008, -2/+31They aren't challenging or criticizing ANY theory; they're focusing on the politically (but not scientifically) controversial theories of "evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning". They aren't challenging things in a thoughtful, innocent manner; they're targeting theories which don't mesh with their form of fundamentalist Christianity.
Also, they aren't being truthful. Proponents of Intelligent Design and critics of the theory of evolution utilize outdated pseudo-facts (which have been discredited exhaustively) in order to portray evolution as obviously false. Case in point, the Discovery Institute, a proponent of this bill, just happens to produce a textbook which questions evolution. Ars technica has another article (http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/0 ... which describes the misrepresentations present in this book, which are also the hallmark of Intelligent Design propaganda. - solidcube, on 06/28/2008, -0/+11This would be analogous to flat-earthers challenging geography classes and forcing professors to respond, and to give credence to their ridiculous flat-earth beliefs. And to do it again and again. And to get the government involved to force geography professors to address the alternate possibility that the earth is flat.
How can people not get this? It's real ***** simple. - nylrym, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3In response to your exactly identical question above, here is my exactly identical response.
-----------------------------------------
Criticizing a theory is neither good nor bad. The basis and method of said criticism are. If I criticize the theory of evolution because I have a more
- ConAmoreEFuoco, on 06/28/2008, -2/+31They aren't challenging or criticizing ANY theory; they're focusing on the politically (but not scientifically) controversial theories of "evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning". They aren't challenging things in a thoughtful, innocent manner; they're targeting theories which don't mesh with their form of fundamentalist Christianity.
- empiric, on 06/28/2008, -14/+2"Anyone with an ounce of skill in critical thinking can absolutely, objectively dismiss Intelligent Design as religious pseudoscience."
No, one can hardly "objectively" dismiss it, because it is simply represented as what it isn't by those who then conclude it "objectively dismissable". It is not inherently "religious", and this will remain simple fact as you claim otherwise. It will remain simple fact the hundredth time you claim so, as the stock straw-man.
The Irreducible Complexity claim is testable, and will be tested as inevitable fact, when we have the genome mapped sufficiently precisely to evaluate the probability of given proposed IC structures on the level of chemistry. On the other hand, the only sense which you care about "evolution", as a proposed exclusive causal factor, is wholly untestable. Equivocating "evolutionary processes occur", which absolutely no one "in ID" denies (as you claim otherwise simply because you have to, for your "ID versus evolution" false dichotomy) with "only evolutionary processes occur" is a misleading equivocation, intended toward, but failing in, supporting your untestable and unscientific metaphysical inference.- Neiby, on 06/28/2008, -0/+8Apparently, you missed the part where people have already proven Behe's examples of irreducible complexity wrong. It was all over YouTube. Surely you saw it.
- nova912, on 06/28/2008, -0/+12The simple fact is, as in the dover trials, the book 'pandas and people' was drafted in several versions. The editor [the mathematician] did a simple word replace for 'creator' to 'intelligent designer'; this was proven in the dover trial, and creationism was proven in the lemon verdict TO BE OF RELIGION.
Intelligent design is bull *****. It claims that an 'intelligent agent' is responsible for life, but ID purposefully makes a point NOT to define what an 'intelligent agent' is. ID also makes sure not to definition he age of the earth either... you know why, because the new earth, the old earth, and the progressive new earth, and the realianists, and the [insert many other creationist groups], all disagree on who did what and how old the earth is... ID is just an undefined rubber-band for creationists' trying to enter into science.
"Irreducible Complexity" has never been tested to be true (as you stated), and the papers written supporting it have never made it into any scientific journal. There is a fundamental problem with that HYPOTHESIS (not theory), 'complexity' is dependent on the person claiming its complex ... a caveman would think a computer is too complex, but computer scientists would see it as obvious and easy understanding that it 'evolved' from many difference basic technologies into complex ones.
Behe's 'wedge document' should be more then enough to show how much ***** ID is, ID aims to undermine science and replace it with religion. - empiric, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1@Neiby: Makes absolutely no difference even if Behe's proposed examples were "proven wrong" (which they weren't--plausible alternative explanations were presented). The issue at hand is whether there are -any- IC structures, and right now, we're at the level of anecdotal analysis, due to limitations of our ability to do the analysis in terms of quantification. I'll fully admit Behe probably personally overestimated his case with regard to certain structures--makes no difference. The actual content of what ID states is not predicated on anyone's errors regarding it, as Einstein's "uncertainty" around QM has no bearing on the veracity of Relativity. Doesn't matter who proposes a hypothesis, or what their motivations are or were--the hypothesis is standalone as a scientific question, and criticizing the person proposing it is scientifically and practically futile.
@nova912:
Doesn't matter who proposes a hypothesis, or what their motivations are or were--the hypothesis is standalone as a scientific question, and criticizing the person proposing it is scientifically and practically futile. And, I am, in fact, a software engineer, so speak for yourself as to what "computer scientists" would see as obvious. I have no problem using genetic algorithm tools (as, again, nobody in ID denies evolution is a factor, even if you need to claim so), and still using my editor for more specific desired outcomes. When you have a genetic algorithm that, in itself, produces Hard AI on its first execution, let's talk again.
- GJBlizzard, on 06/28/2008, -34/+4"Anyone with an ounce of skill in critical thinking can absolutely, objectively dismiss Intelligent Design as religious pseudoscience."
- omnithought, on 06/28/2008, -4/+148Like Carlin said, "Garbage in, garbage out"
This is why our country is *****. Intentional ignorance should be a crime.- SuperWinner, on 06/28/2008, -2/+64brainwashing children into ignorance should be illegal...
- davepascoe, on 06/28/2008, -1/+30It already would be, but unfortunately the US's laws on child abuse specifically contain exemptions for abuse motivated by parents' religious beliefs.
- Wakkyweed, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10@davepascoe -
I guess that explains why the abused pregnant 14 year old children were returned to their "guardians" in that fiasco with the Fundamentalist Mormon nutbags in Texas. - davepascoe, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6@Wakkyweed
yeah, and there's just recently been a case overturned by the supreme court - the supreme court ruled that the people who injured a girl during a forced exorcism (many of which involve placing holy water in the girl's vagina, though not in this case I think, though she was forcibly held down, legs apart and forced to repeat 'Jesus') are not liable for damages, due to 'freedom of religion'.
that's what happens when you have a Catholic-majority supreme court with no respect for the constitution who openly defer to the pope. - ed54, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1Which side are you talking about as being ignorant?
- andibarnes, on 06/28/2008, -1/+7I understand why local communities in the US have control of their own curriculum, but it's probably time to reconsider that in the light of this!
- ZenMojo, on 06/28/2008, -0/+12Bobby Jindal backs this. He also performs exorcisms. McCain, PLEASE put this ***** on the ticket!
- PJ1967, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0"The world needs ditch diggers..." - Judge Smails
And Louisiana's ready to supply the world. - enri, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Intentional ignorance is stupidity.
- chukd, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2Carlin also said, "Question everything!" I am trained in Physics and Nuclear Engineering so I have to ask a couple questions. What is wrong with questioning a theory? There was a point in history where it was thought the Earth was the Center of the Universe. They had data, mathematics, etc... that supported this idea. They could predict movements of stars and planets. It turns out this theory of Astronomy was wrong. It turned out that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe. This was done by questioning a theory. It promoted critical thinking, like the article reads. Question everything, it strengthens an theory or it finds the truth.
- omnithought, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4There's nothing wrong with questioning a theory, and theories of evolution are questioned every time new evidence comes to light. However, every bit of evidence simply keeps supporting it. IE, however, still has yet to achieve a shred of evidence, yet it wants some kind of equal stance.
- heucuva, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Well, in many of the States, the court systems regularly use the quote "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" as a defense for their rulings. So, if that's actually law, then, indeed, intentional ignorance is a crime.
- SuperWinner, on 06/28/2008, -2/+64brainwashing children into ignorance should be illegal...
- thinman1189, on 06/28/2008, -5/+106
"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition."
Isaac Asimov
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them."
Isaac Asimov
"It is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be."
Isaac Asimov
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov
"To insult someone we call him "bestial." For deliberate cruelty and nature, "human" might be the greater insult."
Isaac Asimov
"To introduce something altogether new would mean to begin all over, to become ignorant again, and to run the old, old risk of failing to learn."
Isaac Asimov
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
Isaac Asimov
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Isaac Asimov
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
Albert Einstein
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
Albert Einstein
Hmmm, which to use....- thegodfaza, on 06/28/2008, -0/+13"Louisiana. Taking one step forward and two steps back."
- amoirae, on 06/28/2008, -2/+4Where is the step forward?
- Kristijan12, on 06/28/2008, -0/+11"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov
This one is the best in my opinion - Uranium118, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5Saved for later use. Thanks.
- else7en, on 06/28/2008, -6/+2something of your own maybe
but your ability to bookmark quotation websites is impressive
- thegodfaza, on 06/28/2008, -0/+13"Louisiana. Taking one step forward and two steps back."
- shirosamurai, on 06/28/2008, -5/+115The United States was once at the forefront of scientific and technological discovery. Now we're falling behind - religious ignorance and the "disdain" for science is to blame.
I often communicate with people around the world due to my profession -- one thing that has gotten old very quickly was having to tell people (amid their laughter) that I wasn't joking when I said that a sizable amount of Americans don't believe in evolution.- Suricou, on 06/28/2008, -3/+44As a European, I just want to confirm this: We all laugh at America, yes. We think you are a country of overweight idiots and religious nutcases. Your steriotype is not favorable.
- Mnementh2230, on 06/28/2008, -1/+41As a slim, educated, atheist American... well, I don't take offense. I laugh at the religious nutbags too.
- mohsenxp, on 06/28/2008, -0/+28as a second European I too have to agree that America is laughed at and even publically dissed on our national TV shows for its wide acceptance of intelligent design, or more appropriately its lack of belief in evolution.
I don't find it funny however. I find it extremely frustrating that a great nation such as America (and it is a great nation in my opinion) has fallen to such strong pressure from backward christian fundamentalist groups.
It is a blessing to live in the UK, a country where perhaps the last question a person in politics would be asked, is if they believe in evolution!! Its 2008 god damn it! Stand up Americans, for this christian movement is sending your country back to where it started. - bono4u, on 06/28/2008, -1/+6Not as European which i am not as agnostic which i would count me for, but as medium educated medium aged with i believe a good common sense, i have to laugh about religious nutcases where ever they are. It is only then not funny when it comes to politics where the leaders of the worlds use the believes of their people to engage war, terrorism or the suppression of freedoms and rights for whom our ancestors died for.
- Ramble, on 06/28/2008, -0/+13Agreed, us Europeans are laughing at you. I used to respect America, we all did.
Change it pronto. - theLurcher, on 06/28/2008, -1/+7If it makes you feel better, the scientifically literate among the US population laugh at you Europeans for the whole homeopathy thing.
- leakus, on 06/28/2008, -1/+6I think the US population should laugh about our European homeopathy just as we should laugh about Intelligent Design/Creationism. Both have no place in science and a good indicator for that is that they are restricted to certain geographical areas in the world. If it would be real science, it would be accepted everywhere in the world equally. I don't know a single person here in Europe in favor of Intelligent Design! I really dislike the slogan "teach the controversy". Sorry, there is no controversy between ID and evolution in the scientific community. It is a debate which takes place in the cultural and political sphere.
- reticent1, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4As a Canadian, I laugh, and then shiver with fear because the fundie disease spreads ever northward. Maybe Europe could adopt us?
- DaffyDuck, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2I laugh at South Koreans for believing in "fan death". Look it up.
- zeabu, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2"I don't know a single person here in Europe in favor of Intelligent Design!"
You don't know Angela Merkel? I'll tell you who she is. Chancellor of Germany.
That thing said, homeopathy works, in the head of those people. It's a placebo. So, the dangers of homeopathy are far less than ID.
- Suricou, on 06/28/2008, -3/+44As a European, I just want to confirm this: We all laugh at America, yes. We think you are a country of overweight idiots and religious nutcases. Your steriotype is not favorable.
- SuperWinner, on 06/28/2008, -4/+58Thanks Louisiana, you're now the anchor...
- layzice, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7***** that, set them adrift.
I'm fine with 49 states.- Neiby, on 06/28/2008, -8/+2Actually, I'd be fine with a lot less. If we could get rid of Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, West Virginia, Florida, California and New York, I'd be quite pleased.
- PandarenLord, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6That's a VERY odd list.
- layzice, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7***** that, set them adrift.
- GrownupPhan, on 06/28/2008, -3/+23As if those poor kids who basically lost a year after the hurricane didn't have enough problems. Now they're going to have this to deal with and still try to come out of the school system with some decent shot at being able to get into college.
- opticwind, on 06/28/2008, -34/+1Way to use a natural disaster as a fake righteous indignation argument.
- bababoosh, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1uh, pot calling the kettle black much?
- bababoosh, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1uh, pot calling the kettle black much?
- zeabu, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2The hurricane was a punishment of god, for... I don't know. Let's ask Louisiana, they're the fundies.
- opticwind, on 06/28/2008, -34/+1Way to use a natural disaster as a fake righteous indignation argument.
- saltinekracka20, on 06/28/2008, -6/+19Geaux Tigers?
- freqk, on 06/28/2008, -10/+26I say we take off and nuke the entire state from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
- NYCTulanian, on 06/28/2008, -1/+4leave new orleans behind, most of us are cool. the rest -- well we've wanted them gone long before this.
- Fiyerstorm, on 06/28/2008, -2/+2Yeah, why do I deserve to die? :(
- davepascoe, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7Cos you haven't seen Aliens?
- BlacklabelSAR, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3You'll reincarnate, relax. ;)
- NYCTulanian, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1anyone who voted for jindal deserves this. unfortunately its the rest of us -- all 17% -- who get screwed.
- secrity, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1Leave New Orleans behind.
- Wakkyweed, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Luckily for us there isn't a giant brain bug living underground controlling all the people in Louisiana. Or is there??
- Wakkyweed, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Oops! I got my movie quotes confused. There are similar quotes in both Aliens and Starship Troopers about nuking from orbit.
Bummer.
- Wakkyweed, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Oops! I got my movie quotes confused. There are similar quotes in both Aliens and Starship Troopers about nuking from orbit.
- FairDinkumMate, on 06/28/2008, -5/+37Who's leading who?
The middle east region centuries ago were the world leaders in science, until religion got in the way of education & they went quickly backwards.
The US was(is still?) one of the world leaders in science & now you are going to let religion get in the way of education!
Maybe the US adopting the moral standards of religous extremists with regard to waging war was only the first step in what your country is learning from these people?- trenchfever, on 06/28/2008, -10/+1"The middle east region millenia ago" that is.
Don't buy into the neo-jizzlam koran humping. It's all a ***** lie.- Azerael, on 06/28/2008, -1/+8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Islam
- johndi, on 06/28/2008, -1/+7Many of the scientists they claim were Islamic were not even religious. It's like the Christian attempt to posthumously conscript Einstein! Al-Razi is a great example. He was practically the Richard Dawkins of his day. The scathing books he wrote on religion would get him killed today. While there is truth to what you say, my problem is that the way you say it is so offensive and clumsy it makes George Dubya Bush look sophisticated.
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2006/05/abu ...
- Gemfinder, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10What's even funnier is that the country where Mr. Jindal's parents came from, India, was known for scientific advances long before the Middle East was. They're known for the most sophisticated astronomy in the ancient world.
But hey, I guess the stars are really just a bagful of animal and people souls that fell out of the bag when Coyote grabbed it and ran across the sky with it. - nick111, on 06/28/2008, -0/+9I think the mistake here is to assume that the US is one place. It's not. It's The United States of Canada, and Jesusland.
Silicon Valley and this particular corner of Louisiana are only in the same country for historical reasons. Other than that, they may as well be (and would probably prefer to be) on different continents... assuming of course the bible ones know what a continent is... or believe that they exist etc.- Nichiren, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Although it certainly feels like we're in our own little corner of this continent when I'm living in the Northeast (NYC's "GDP" alone can rival the GDPs of many small countries) and that the South and the Midwest don't really exist, they're hard to ignore when they also have a large voice in American national politics and those elected officials get to make broad, sweeping decisions that affect all of us.
Now if someone were to establish a country completely based on scientific understanding and technological advancement (ala Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series) and it became extremely successful, the rest of the world would have to follow suit. That'd be cool and will totally not be within my lifetime. - zeabu, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Split US. Join Canada.
- Nichiren, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Although it certainly feels like we're in our own little corner of this continent when I'm living in the Northeast (NYC's "GDP" alone can rival the GDPs of many small countries) and that the South and the Midwest don't really exist, they're hard to ignore when they also have a large voice in American national politics and those elected officials get to make broad, sweeping decisions that affect all of us.
- mohsenxp, on 06/28/2008, -6/+0Just because a scientist was great in an Islamic country does not make that scientist himself a Muslim.
Thats like looking back in 100years time and claiming all the great scientists of America as Christian scientists!
A country will progress and advance given a few factors and economic growth. This has very little to do with what religion it adopts.
I fail to see how the era when the muslim countries ruled over science has anything to do with the fact that they were muslim countries! They could have been buddhists and their advancements would be the same!
It is religion that surpresses scientific research. Don't believe the BS.- FairDinkumMate, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1You TOTALLY missed the point. Religion controlling ANY country is bad for science & scientists(regardless of their personal beliefs). The religion a country adopts is irrelevant, as is its effect on science & education until/unless it begins to control or signinficantly influence governmental policy regarding SCIENCE & EDUCATION. Intelligent Design in the US is a perfect example of religion beginning to affect science & education.
"I fail to see how the era when the muslim countries ruled over science has anything to do with the fact that they were muslim countries!" That they were Muslim has nothing to do with it. That religion had control over the education process is the issue. The point is that they WERE the world leaders in science UNTIL that science began to discover things that contradicted the religion. At that point, the religion took over & the science stopped. This is why there is a problem with religions in the US pushing for ID to be taught as science. The ONLY reason they don't like the theory of evolution is because they interpret it as contradicting the bible. See a pattern?
- FairDinkumMate, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1You TOTALLY missed the point. Religion controlling ANY country is bad for science & scientists(regardless of their personal beliefs). The religion a country adopts is irrelevant, as is its effect on science & education until/unless it begins to control or signinficantly influence governmental policy regarding SCIENCE & EDUCATION. Intelligent Design in the US is a perfect example of religion beginning to affect science & education.
- bkhan90, on 06/29/2008, -0/+4go ahead digg me down...but what you said about the Muslims world and the middle east is the stuff my dad says everyday
as a devout muslim he has taught that a good religion should be validated by science, not in constant struggle with it
- trenchfever, on 06/28/2008, -10/+1"The middle east region millenia ago" that is.
- Evangelical, on 06/28/2008, -82/+4My local Church and other Churches around the New York area will be calling our Representatives and Congressmen (we will also do faith drives on Grand Central Station and other high traffic stations) and we will demand our City gets the same Law passed. New York City education is beyond pathetic. This law will hopefully help our kids gain morals and teach them to be proud Patriotic Americans. God Bless Mr. Jindal and America.
- sleepyjjk, on 06/28/2008, -2/+49What? Morals don't need to be taught in a science classroom, they need to be taught by parents and society.
- kolinkoolface2, on 06/28/2008, -3/+44are you ***** stupid or just really ***** stupid
- funktimus, on 06/28/2008, -3/+26Well, just curious, would you mind sharing what it is about evolution that threatens you?
As a non-practicing Roman Catholic and Biology Major I'd like to say that despite the title of Darwin's book and all the atheists with Darwin-fish-bumper-stickers, evolution doesn't denounce God, nor does it give an explanation for how life began. As is stands, thermodynamics has a better shot at explaing the origins of life, but last I check that was just a theory as well.
It's just saying that frequencies of alleles in a population fluctuate/change over time. Or in other words, the people of our generation are MOST MOST MOST likely be somewhat different than the last generation at the genetic level. This is because people choose mates for a reason. I guess if you chose your significant other because of Divine Will or Fate, than I guess evolution can be an issue for you. But if you believe your kids are somewhat different than and your mate; and if you believe you made a conscious decision to choose your mate for some reason(s), evolution and natural selection shouldn't threaten you, your kids, or your faith.- kayala, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2I dugg your comment, then got to "just a theory" and was forced to withdraw it. Please, don't do this to us.
- funktimus, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1My bad kayala. I wrote this late at night. What I meant to say was the origins of life is just a theory. I have a hunch that too many people think evolution tries to explain how the single cell organism came about, which it doesn't. Evolution, allele frequency changes that may result in varying phenotypes (seen or unseen by the human eye), is really nothing short of indisputable. Darwin and his contemporaries observed the phenomenon and they merely took guesses as to how it happened. Natural Selection is a theory, but honestly, it's not going to be disputed either. You might as well try to debunk the theory of gravity.
- imakecomments, on 06/29/2008, -0/+0You're a biology major? You should know what the word 'theory' means.
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
- vdgmr1213, on 06/28/2008, -1/+18I was going to ask if you were joking, but then I saw your username...
- Syujinkou, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1Nice troll... I give you 6/10
- 4DFX, on 06/28/2008, -3/+8I can't believe I'm reading this. If I had a time machine I'd send you and all the creationists back to the dark ages where you belong.
- candre23, on 06/28/2008, -2/+17You seemed to have mistyped the URL. This is Digg.com. Biblethumpingdingbat.com is over there ->
- digitalpencil, on 06/28/2008, -0/+8^^ there's no point in getting all worked up guys. idiots with the moniker 'evangelical' are not going to be swayed by logic.. ignorance is their rectitude and despite Louisiana having passed this, there's no chance it will succeed in New York. It's just too big and thankfully has free-thinking residents.
- flashback99, on 06/28/2008, -0/+9Man I wish I could block people like you in real life. Just one click and whoosh! you're all gone :) taking all your ***** with you into blockland.
- unitedatheism, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Congratulations, you've it to made the most buried pos awardt! Hooray!
- kolinkoolface2, on 06/28/2008, -9/+8"that sounds kind of..... dumb du-du-du-dumb dummmmmmb"
- Coolkid11, on 06/28/2008, -6/+79Governor Bobby Jindal is a backwards Christian prick.
- emkaysmith, on 06/28/2008, -0/+11The appalling thing is that he's a Rhodes Scholar. Which makes you wonder just what they're teaching at Oxford these days.
- JQP123, on 06/28/2008, -0/+8I'd say politics.
- flashback99, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Stupidity can't just be taught, it comes from within too. It takes two to tango.
- solidcube, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7You're being redundant.
- BetterOffEd, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6Plus---he got his biology degree from Brown university. So you have to think... Is this just political pandering? If so, I'm not sure which is worse...
- diggrnumber1, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2political pandering is worse. he is caving to the religious right just to gain political points. at least the religious right thinks that what they're doing is right. bobby jindal, on the other hand, has no morals.
- Adk920, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1I couldn't have said it better. It's sad that there's enough of these religious fundamentalists to enact such a law.
- emkaysmith, on 06/28/2008, -0/+11The appalling thing is that he's a Rhodes Scholar. Which makes you wonder just what they're teaching at Oxford these days.
- sleepyjjk, on 06/28/2008, -3/+56Ugh, this is sad. Religion/Intelligent-Design do not belong in a science classroom.
The representatives who passed this law obviously have no true understanding or grasp of science. Otherwise they would know that the scientific theories now are very strong and are backed up with mountains of evidence.
I really hope that in my lifetime, I see some scientific revolution. Not only would it be very exciting, I hope it would show people the wonders of science and all the answers that it posses - also, I hope they would learn more about it instead of using God as an answer to everything.- opticwind, on 06/28/20