If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   University of California admissions officials refuse to certify high school science courses with textbooks promoting creationism   (latimes.com) divider line 860
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

14360 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Aug 2005 at 6:19 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



860 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-08-30 11:32:38 PM
what happened to the hero tag? its interesting now...

i love how many right groups... seemingly mostly christian... like to push for the "right" to teach everyone else what believe is right... didnt realize biotech companies would hire pure creationists? hey wouldnt that be against creationism? we're tampering with the higher beings intelligent design?
 
2005-08-30 11:33:21 PM
My mornings start early and I still have much work to do before tomorrow morning but I shall finish this up tomorrow :)
 
2005-08-30 11:34:26 PM
 
2005-08-30 11:35:40 PM
There is a gradual process from theory to biological law.

No, there isn't. "Theories" are attempts to explain causes of observed phenomenon (there is the additional requirement that they have already been strengthened through evidence, otherwise it's just a hypothesis). "Laws" are generalizations about observations through which predictions of future observarions can be made.

The "law of gravity" is a generalization regarding observations of gravitational attraction. The theory of gravity -- also known as general relativity theory -- is an attempt to explain why that attraction exists. They are two different concepts, and neither is "higher" than the other.

Theories do not become laws. Laws are not more "certain" than theories. Laws can be falsified just as easily as theories. Newton's laws of motion have been falsified. Learn something about the scientific method before making declarative statements about it.
 
2005-08-30 11:36:29 PM
Bevets:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No.What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap. "Certainly the record is poor, but the jerkiness you see is not the result of gaps, it is the consequence of the jerky mode of evolutionary change."
~Roger Lewin

At least have the decency to include enough of the quote that you aren't lying about the intent of the statement. Dammit, Steve, isn't lying a sin in your religion? Aren't you afraid that you're going to burn in Hell for these lies that you spread?
 
2005-08-30 11:37:14 PM
Yes, I was being facetious. And I know such things are said in earnest (where do you think I heard this one?) And yes, it does have something directly to do with evolution/ID, because this argument uses the same kind logical leaps that ID does. It takes incomplete information (WTF, 0=1?) and fills in the gap with God (so God DOES exist) without further inquiry (how do you add an infinity of numbers?)
 
2005-08-30 11:37:19 PM
There is zero evidence for Creationism, yet we should be 'fair' and allow it in classrooms? I thought political correctness was supposed to be dead. Evolution provides huge and ever increasing practical benefits to us. Creationism offers a bunch of lies that are repeated even after they have been thoroughly debunked. (both links pop)
 
2005-08-30 11:37:51 PM
The lawsuit could be justifified...if creationism was science.
 
2005-08-30 11:39:25 PM
Oracle of Bandwidth: Actually they really don't hate science, it's just they have a higher standard of ethics.


There's no scientific evidence to support that assertion.
 
2005-08-30 11:39:42 PM
Bevets

For Yahweh's sake, you can have your own beliefs, but I'll be damned (heh) if I'll stand here and let you pervert the name of Stephen Jay Gould by quoting out of context to serve your purposes.

The man's existence was given to the furtherment and understandin' of evolution, even reaching common cretins like me.
 
2005-08-30 11:41:02 PM
Rooting for da Saints was easy, once I got deprogrammed.
 
2005-08-30 11:41:10 PM
Sliding Carp writes: Let's be fair here - the Luddites were rational...

Maybe so...but, that's not really relevant. A modern word does not have to share the true characteristics of its eponym.

Did Potemkin actually erect fake towns for the benefit of Catherine? I can't say with reliability -- but, the tale of Grigori Aleksandrovich is likely apocryphal. Doesn't take away from the utility of the phrase "Potemkin Village" though.

And, if you're wondering why I'm arguing such a small point, please understand that I have to. You see, I haven't been in a flamewar for a few days and I need my fix. It's like heroin to me. I'd argue with you if you told me water was wet.
 
2005-08-30 11:41:47 PM
Bevets
Nothing in science is based on faith. Nothing.

Do you really believe this? Can you prove it?


Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. So no, he can't prove it. The weight should be on you to disprove the statement by giving an example of science based on faith.
 
2005-08-30 11:43:44 PM
Gee, I guess Bevets doesn't like having his quotes completed.
 
2005-08-30 11:44:16 PM
You don't unravel the human genome sequence as a scientist and because you were taught parables on how man was made through adam and eve, and a rib-bone.

And you don't find extreme fundamentalist christians working in a science field trying to help find cures to various diseases and helping humanity, because we all know-if you died because of poor health or poor genetics in their eyes "It was God's will for them to suffer so."

Blank statements like "Creation of world is too complex its beyond our comprehension" well DUH. lots of things are BEYOND our knowledge and comprehension, that's why there is a thing called R&D.

Let these moron idiot fundamentalist live without modern technology and the benefits of the advancements of science and we'll see how much praying they'll do.


//Catholic and went to private school. But this pushing of intelligent design is MORONIC.
 
2005-08-30 11:45:11 PM
LaTraviata:

I hate that I'm going out of order but here goes.

Go in whatever order you wish, milady.

There is a gradual process from theory to biological law.

No, there isn't. Now, I'm not allowed to argue with you anymore until you pay.
 
2005-08-30 11:46:46 PM
Sloth_DC
Gee, I guess Bevets doesn't like having his quotes completed.
I'm sure he will do the Christian thing and apologize for lying (whether or not it was intentional) and not let it happen again (because then it would be intentional).
 
2005-08-30 11:49:32 PM
enave: But in every thread that deals with christianity, in every single one, we get a ton of intolerant atheists.


No no. What you see are people who think that religion belongs in church and science in science classes. I don't care what anyone believes, as long as they don't try to screw up my children's education (which, as a property-owning taxpayer, I've paid for.) And yeah, religious loons pay taxes too. Do I march into their churches and demand that they teach the Big Bang, just because their tax-exempt status mean I have to pay more taxes? No, I don't. So stay the hell out of the schools.
 
2005-08-30 11:51:18 PM
Steak:

I'm sure he will do the Christian thing and apologize for lying (whether or not it was intentional) and not let it happen again (because then it would be intentional).

Clearly, he's off doing penance for his lies and will be back shortly to apologize for them, this being only the fifth time I've pointed out that the exact same quote was a lie.
 
2005-08-30 11:55:01 PM
Smallberries

Evolution is observed. "Micro" evolution might be one of the observations of evolution. However, there is no such thing as "Micro" evolution.

Bevets

The opposite truth has been affirmed by innumerable cases of measurable evolution at this minimal scale-but, to be visible at all over so short a span, evolution must be far too rapid (and transient) to serve as the basis for major transformations in geological time. Hence, the paradox of the visibly irrelevant-or, if you can see it at all, its too fast to matter in the long run. ~ Stephen Jay Gould


Sloth_DC

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No.What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap. "Certainly the record is poor, but the jerkiness you see is not the result of gaps, it is the consequence of the jerky mode of evolutionary change."
~Roger Lewin

At least have the decency to include enough of the quote that you aren't lying about the intent of the statement. Dammit, Steve, isn't lying a sin in your religion? Aren't you afraid that you're going to burn in Hell for these lies that you spread?


Please interpret 'Clear NO'

How would you reconcile your interpretation of 'Clear NO' with Smallberries' assertion that 'there is no such thing as "Micro" evolution.'?
 
2005-08-30 11:55:08 PM
Isn't this an interesting thread! As always, the devil in the details. The article doesn't get too specific, so we can't be sure if those at UC are being fascist pigs or brilliant policymakers.

If 99% of your science course is real science, including evo, yes that is a science course even if some criticism of evo theories is presented in the other 1%

If these Bob Jones books are in fact religious books disguised as science, such that maybe 30% of what the kids learn is real science, then I applaud the university's decision.

The reason I'm a strong supporter of incorporating what ALL scientists have to say, or let's say all those with Ph.Ds in the hard sciences, is that for the layperson most of this stuff is faith or trust-based. I don't suggest that gravity requires faith, although Bugs can be funny. But most people will never delve into this stuff "for themselves" to any appreciable level.

In light of that, it makes sense to incorporate information from all of the experts in a complex field. If the majority agree with proposition X, that is the consensus opinion. The minority opinion is thus by definition "controversial." Of course ID and creationism should not be taught in science classes, but but teaching of the existence of controversy and alternative Ph.D-caliber viewpoints (to pick an arbitrary level of expertise) should not be punished in any way.
 
2005-08-31 12:03:33 AM
LaTraviata: This essay is an attempt to renounce social Darwinism.


What's funny about this is that Social Darwinism is alive and well and widely promoted by the religious right.

BTW, Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, any more than the Nazis were followers of Jesus.
 
2005-08-31 12:06:55 AM
darkenergy: If 99% of your science course is real science, including evo, yes that is a science course even if some criticism of evo theories is presented in the other 1%


Scientific criticisms of evolution are fine. Wacko religious theories about the origin of the universe are not scientific criticisms.
 
2005-08-31 12:07:00 AM
LaTraviata
I'm opposed to teaching ID in a room of science.

That's good. Since this is obviously not a room of science, care to teach us all about ID then.
 
2005-08-31 12:08:43 AM
,b>radish04

Yes, punish the kids who got put in private school by their parents, etc. Nice use of Hero tag...

Actually, most "private" schools (like Catholic schools) teach SCIENCE which includes evolution, and if religious, teach religion AS A SEPARATE CLASS.

Hero tag MOST appropriatly used.

/They can always go to Bob Jones University....
//But then they couldn't get the taxpayers to foot the bill for that,could they?
///HYPOCRITES
 
2005-08-31 12:10:31 AM
Anyone defending the creationists in this course is a moron.

http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/08/more-on-california-creati onist-lawsuit.html
http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/08/still-more-on-california- creationist.html

That's why.
 
2005-08-31 12:13:30 AM
Evidence of microevolution------->human fossil record
Evidence of macroevolution------->dinosaur with wings that looks like bird

Evidence of creationism-------> nothing

/case closed
 
2005-08-31 12:16:29 AM
Dorothy Day
Actually, most "private" schools (like Catholic schools) teach SCIENCE which includes evolution, and if religious, teach religion AS A SEPARATE CLASS.
Good point. My mom taught in a private Christian school (now retired), but she had no problem teaching evolution. This shouldn't be an atheist vs. Christians thing. This is a matter of evolution, which is the best theory explaining biology vs. Creationism, which has made zero contribution to our knowledge.
 
2005-08-31 12:18:36 AM
Couple of things - up for discussion, not trolling for flamebait:

1. If the student's planned major really doesn't depend need a strong scientific base - humanities, economics, language - is this really an issue? When I was a naive college freshman, I was a science major, and remarked to someone that I'd be surprised to find creationists in our group. Someone pointed out one of the juniors in our group, who was doing honors-list work in electrical engineering, who was a "fundie".

2. Some local radio stations in the U.S. run this 1-minute progam called "Star Date". It's an astrononomy news item, presented by the University of Texas, usually featuring some current event in the skies (like eclipses or meteor showers), but on "slow days" the show talks about stars, novae, planets, etc. Last Saturday, the program was about a binary star system that had outbursts of energy. The system was observed, and its outburtst were explained by, astronomers from Bob Jones University. It blew me away (figuratively; no pun intended), but I can see them basing their theories on observed physics, even if they believe the physics was part of a great "scheme" by a behind-the-scenes being - the concept of God making the dinosaur bones look millions of years old when they may only be 3000 years old.

/God must have been a model railroader.
 
2005-08-31 12:19:33 AM
If the christofascists want their own seperate backwardsass high schools then they should not expect to be accepted by modern universities. What are their poor ignorant children going to think when they take college biology and learn that evolution is a fact? Sue again? fark em.
 
2005-08-31 12:22:41 AM
MWeather:

radish042:

Regardless of your views on creationism, seems unfair to me to make these kids attend a) more highschool, b) more college because of educational decisions some of them didn't make.

If I was taught that 2+2=5, should I or should I need to take a remedial math course before I'm admitted to college?



Exactly. What's next, faith based math? Using science class to teach Alchemy?
 
2005-08-31 12:22:48 AM
 
2005-08-31 12:26:20 AM
Religion is not science. Philosophy is not English. Some say Math is everything but for our purposes it is not Social Studies. End of lesson.

/A Christian
 
2005-08-31 12:29:28 AM
A quote from the 'science' book in question:
Was Joseph Smith's [founder of the Mormons -tqa] revalation from God? Based on Scripture, one must say no! The apostle Paul says that if anyone (including Paul himself or even an angel) comes and preaches any other gospel, he is to be accursed (Gal 1:8).

Um, WTF is that doing in a biology textbook? Sample pages from the 'textbook' can be found here (pops)
 
2005-08-31 12:30:28 AM
Maybe I missed it in the flamewar, but when was the Hero tag changed to the Interesting tag?
 
2005-08-31 12:32:02 AM
mysha

1. If the student's planned major really doesn't depend need a strong scientific base - humanities, economics, language - is this really an issue?


Yes- first of all, a huge percentage of students change their major at least once during college. "Planned" major means squat. And in any case, no respectable university is going to hand you a degree with their name (and reputation) on it unless they can show that you have demonstrated a basic grasp of certain essential proficiencies.

Imagine a guy with unparalled knowledge of computer science, but who obviously has no fundamental understanding of history or art or ability to communicate at all. There is a place for people who want that kind of extremely focused education that teaches nothing but the trade oriented skills you want, and it is usually called something like "DeVry."

The point of a university education is not to teach you how to do some job in the future, it is to teach you how to think, and to be a more well rounded individual and a citizen of the world.
 
2005-08-31 12:35:53 AM
Bucky Katt
Maybe I missed it in the flamewar, but when was the Hero tag changed to the Interesting tag?

Probably after the 100th whiner bleating "Christian persecution!" to FarkBack.
 
2005-08-31 12:36:24 AM

These people believe in fire-breathing dinosaurs:

In Job 41 God describes a second creature. The leviathan is a mighty untamable, fearless animal with tightly-fitting scales and a mouth full of terrible teeth, out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke...His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth (Job 41:19-21). Was leviathan a fire-breathing dragon? Some skeptics point to this passage and say that since fire-breathing dragons are myths, the Bible must be a book of fairy tales. Christians must reject such interpretations. Is it possible that fire-breathing animals existed? Today some scientists are saying yes. They have found large chambers in certain dinosaur skulls. These chambers do not exist in skulls of living organisms, and scientists are not sure of their function. Is it possible that the large skull chamber contained special chemical producing glands? When the animal forced the chemicals out of its mouth or nose, these substances may have combined to produce fire and smoke. This chemical might have been similar to the bombardier beetles reaction. This beetle is able to produce chemicals that cause an explosion when released. Job was probably familiar with behemoths and leviatans because they were animals he had seen on the earth. Many creationists believe that before the Flood, and for a short time afterwards, dinosaurs and men lived neat each other. If this is so, then behemoth and leviathan may have been seen by Job around four thousand to five thousand years ago. Page 143


That is a Bob Jones biology book. Do you really want a course with that text to be credited as a real biology course? Source/More Scary Quotes.
 
2005-08-31 12:37:32 AM
Bevets

First of all, I'd argue that "micro" and "macro" evolution are just used as a figure of speech, like how the word "theory" is tossed around even in scientific circles. Realistically, "micro" and "macro" evolution are both examples of the same evolution, just over different timescales. You can see that there really is no distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution formally. There is no "Theory of Microevolution." There is no "Theory of Macroevolution." This differs from other fields of science. How about "Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity" and "Einstein's Theory of General Relativity"? Or "Newton's Theory of Gravity"? All three deal with the same thing. To make an analogy to "micro" and "macro," you could describe "micro" gravity - the minute changes in gravity as people move things around, and how it affects other objects. You could also describe "macro" gravity - the movement of planets, the formation of galaxies and galaxy clusters, the formation of black holes.

The opposite truth has been affirmed by innumerable cases of measurable evolution at this minimal scale-but, to be visible at all over so short a span, evolution must be far too rapid (and transient) to serve as the basis for major transformations in geological time. Hence, the paradox of the visibly irrelevant-or, if you can see it at all, its too fast to matter in the long run. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

Using the sense of "micro" and "macro" like I did, this comment makes perfect sense. "Micro" evolution could describe the colors of the shells of bugs, but over a vast geological period, the colors don't matter much. It's the same evolution as the kinds that'll determine if there are poisonous chemicals or chemicals that taste bad to predators that really contribute to the evolution of a species, perhaps maybe forming the bombadier beetle, which many IDers like to tout as "irreducably complex" and many creationists like to tout as a demonstration of their God's work. It makes perfect sense, and it's still the same kind of evolution.

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No.What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap. "Certainly the record is poor, but the jerkiness you see is not the result of gaps, it is the consequence of the jerky mode of evolutionary change." ~Roger Lewin

Maybe you have the a quote as to the context of this quote, Bevets? It's necessary for interpreting what the "clear No" means in your question. The sentence "...whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution." doesn't mention who's doing the extrapolation: the scientists or the natural world. If it's the scientists, that makes sense, because microevolution is amazingly complicated and would be difficult to extend into macroevolution (remember we're using figures of speech here). After all, you'd think that at this conference, the scientists would at least know the difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution and learn their relationship, wouldn't you? Lewin then discusses whether or not these two scales of evolution should be seperated into different studies (what I talked about earlier). It's like how there's microeconomics and macroeconomics. Microeconomics is on a smaller scale and more prone to and more affected by a wider variety of factors, making it impossible to make what you know about macroeconomics entirely based on knowledge of microeconomics.

Here's the bottom line.
1) Until you see the "Theory of Microevolution" and the "Theory of Macroevolution," you can be pretty much assured that they're being used in that fashion as a figure of speech, as it is already used with many other subjects (e.g: economics)
2) We need to know the context of the Lewin quote (even after Sloth_DC expanded an already-deceptive quote for you to determine who is doing the extrapolation. If it's the scientists (which I just argued is more likely), I myself would argue a "clear no" as to the extrapolation. If it's nature doing the extrapolation then:
a) There should be seperate theories of "micro" and "macro" evolution (there currently aren't, and I haven't heard of anybody proposing this)
b) All that means is that there are two different perspectives on the same evolution.
 
2005-08-31 12:39:18 AM
HERO!
 
2005-08-31 12:42:36 AM
Poor LiveFree42, you've been asking everyone that comes into this thread to explain to you why ID is science, but no one's given you an answer. And you've been so patient too.

If I were you, I'd conclude there is no reason why ID is science, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, so I'll guess you'll just have to keep on asking everyone for the rest of this thread.

And the thread after that.

And the thread after that.

And the- oh screw it, are you ready to conclude that ID isn't science?
 
2005-08-31 12:48:36 AM
You want your kids to learn that crap, pay and send them to a private school. No reason the general public should be subjected to any religious teachings in schools paid for by taxpayers.
 
2005-08-31 12:50:57 AM


Never been more proud to be a UC Graduate.
(UC Davis, B.Sc. in Biology)
 
2005-08-31 12:53:44 AM
"Yes, punish the kids who got put in private school by their parents, etc. Nice use of Hero tag..."

absafarkinglootely

this is the only way to put pressure on the fundies...
hey, they voted for chimpie, they can go to college in a red state.
 
2005-08-31 12:55:22 AM
So what's wrong with a sidebar telling students that a) evolution is a theory b) theories are updated all the time c) creationism is a theory based on religion that was prevalent at one time and some still believe in it to this day d) science benefits by challenging established theories and schools of thought.

There. There's your Creationism presented in a textbook in all the glory it deserves without destroying the minds of those students who firmly believe that God created Adam and Eve et al.
 
2005-08-31 12:55:30 AM
Smallberries

I think what a few creationist are attempting to do is state that scientific knowledge is based on faith by assailing the fact that is it based on axiomatic assumptions. 1) Knowledge is obtainable through the scientific method (and through it only, for materialist thought) 2) Knowledge is a desirable thing.

If those are what qualifies science as a "faith" to them, their criteria are pretty damn weak. Any view is going to have axioms; even Cartesian doubt fails to operate without them because it assumes that logic is dependable. It's just intellectually bankrupt to try to put ID on equal footing with a vigorously tested theory like evolution because both happen to be derived from axioms.
 
2005-08-31 01:04:25 AM
http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

I can't read any more BS.
Let people who believe in ID and creationism be treated by doctors who were taught that storks bring babies. These types of morons are the biggest threat to our future there is.

It's hogwash. There is no debate.

And fark whoever changed the tag. Spineless P'Taq! But then what can we expect from this site which is just a front.
 
2005-08-31 01:05:14 AM
This thread is worthless without pics of Bevets eating spaghetti.
 
2005-08-31 01:11:57 AM
code_monkey

Excellent way to show tolerance.


Yes, they are also intolerant for insisting that the Earth rotates and revolves around the sun, rather than the sun revolving around the Earth.

So closed minded, aren't they?
 
2005-08-31 01:28:30 AM
Dancin_In_Anson

Isn't this discrimination based on Religion?


Assuming that all Christians, and not just the fundamentalist nuts, refuted the factual evidence behind evolution, you might have a point. Evolution is not anti-god or anti-Christian. The majority of Christians seem to believe that god exists and that evolution is part of his plan, they are not mutually exclusive.

Of course, ID theory isn't supposed to be religion, so you appear to have unintelligently slipped there by admitting it is. It's supposed to officially be a scientific theory. An untestable theory with no hypothesis and no observable evidence, but whatever.
 
Displayed 50 of 860 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report