Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Huffington Post)   Texas textbook review panelist: "'creation science' based on Biblical principles should be incorporated into every Biology book that is up for adoption"   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, Texas, Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, Texas Freedom Network, Texas A&M University, National Center for Science Education, Texas Education Agency, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Discovery Institute  
•       •       •

6825 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Sep 2013 at 4:25 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



253 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-11 02:35:39 PM  
Proponents should only be able to use creation science in their family medical treatments.
 
2013-09-11 02:53:11 PM  
"I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory," wrote Beathard

Well, at least your last name rhymes with an apt description of you.
 
2013-09-11 02:58:29 PM  
how are these children going to exist in the real world?
 
2013-09-11 03:12:56 PM  
Well, think about this... in just a few years these kids will be voting.  Voting for things like funding science, medicine, et al.  Congratulations Texas; you're farking up our society.
 
2013-09-11 03:13:32 PM  
Superstitious, prancing stone age savages. And where Texas goes in education textbooks, so goes the nation.

We'd be better off letting australopithecus dictate our core curriculum. At least kids would learn some practical things about nuts and berries and shiat.
 
2013-09-11 03:32:25 PM  
teaching creationism as science is child abuse.
 
2013-09-11 03:36:31 PM  

ManateeGag: how are these children going to exist in the real world?


As long as they stay in Texas they're golden
 
2013-09-11 03:39:48 PM  

Blues_X: Proponents should only be able to use creation science in their family medical treatments.


Yay! Penicillin for all!
 
2013-09-11 03:40:36 PM  

ManateeGag: how are these children going to exist in the real world?


Apparently they get jobs at Texas A&M

Panelist Karen Beathard, who works in the Department of Nutrition and Food Science at Texas A&M University, critiqued the lack of creationism reflected in the textbooks.
 
2013-09-11 03:40:36 PM  

ManateeGag: how are these children going to exist in the real world?


Poorly, would be my guess.
 
2013-09-11 03:41:01 PM  
Or, as an alternative--hear me out, here--you can go fark yourself.
 
2013-09-11 03:41:45 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: ManateeGag: how are these children going to exist in the real world?

As long as they stay in Texas they're golden


Not the issue.... Texas buys more books, in bulk, than any other customer.  So most school districts follow what Texas does in order to get text books cheaper.  So when it comes to textbooks, where Texas leads, the country follows.  Not everywhere, but in enough places that stories like this are far more scary than they appear.
 
2013-09-11 03:42:05 PM  
If this goes thru I want them to include ancient Egyptian and Norse pagan creationist beliefs in textbooks as well.
 
2013-09-11 03:44:07 PM  

netizencain: Well, think about this... in just a few years these kids will be voting.  Voting for things like funding science, medicine, et al.  Congratulations Texas; you're farking up our society.


Godammitsomuch. I swear not all of us are science-illiterate 'tards. I really hope this is the last gasp of conservative fogeys before millenials and latinos eventually turn our state purple, then blue.
 
2013-09-11 03:44:19 PM  

netizencain: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ManateeGag: how are these children going to exist in the real world?

As long as they stay in Texas they're golden

Not the issue.... Texas buys more books, in bulk, than any other customer.  So most school districts follow what Texas does in order to get text books cheaper.  So when it comes to textbooks, where Texas leads, the country follows.  Not everywhere, but in enough places that stories like this are far more scary than they appear.


Civilized places will reject books with such non-sense.  Or at least skip over those chapters.  I am sure that there are groups out there that would love to supply textbooks for free to school children.  But such books would be unsuitable for an education.
 
2013-09-11 03:47:13 PM  
http://nfs.tamu.edu/facultystaff/faculty/beathard-karen/

She teaches a class called "Food Service Mgmt "; hence she's a perfect panelist to debate evolution.
 
2013-09-11 03:47:20 PM  
No.  No it shouldn't, thinking it does, or not knowing why it shouldn't, should disqualify you for that job. Dumbass.
 
2013-09-11 03:49:24 PM  
Why doesn't California challenge this?  They have plenty of students
 
2013-09-11 03:49:38 PM  
"At the same time, [evolution] is a theory," wrote Beathard...

Well OK, then, as long it is a "theory", we better damn well teach it. And while we are at it, here are a couple more, courtesy of Wikipedia.

Chiromancy:  Palm reading
Iridology: Same deal, but based on the iris.
Phrenology: Same deal, but shape of the head.

However, in this case, we do have a marvelous chance to teach the real world use of Carlo Maria Cipollo's 5th theory of stupidity.

A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person there is.
 
2013-09-11 03:52:18 PM  
 
2013-09-11 03:54:53 PM  

netizencain: http://nfs.tamu.edu/facultystaff/faculty/beathard-karen/

She teaches a class called "Food Service Mgmt "; hence she's a perfect panelist to debate evolution.


I wonder what her thoughts are on apples?
 
2013-09-11 03:57:23 PM  

exick: "I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory," wrote Beathard

Well, at least your last name rhymes with an apt description of you.


Weathered?
Tethered?
Feathered?
 
2013-09-11 03:58:18 PM  
Please Proceed.

I'd love to add yet another layer of reinforcement to the wall of separation between church and state.
 
2013-09-11 03:59:43 PM  

ManateeGag: how are these children going to exist in the real world?


There's one stretch of highway where we have a running game of measuring the CPM (churches per mile). It's pretty sparsely populated, with maybe only a handful of homes between each of these bastions of intellectual growth, so I gotta wonder about the economics. But it's absolutely impossible to underestimate the money available simply by repeating the same ... er.. "content" over and over.

You can go to college for six years, be in massive debt when you get out, and hope to make $160k in 5-10 years in science, 8 years and hope for $200k as a GP, or just tell people what they want to hear, and the sky is the limit.
 
2013-09-11 04:03:12 PM  

EvilEgg: netizencain: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ManateeGag: how are these children going to exist in the real world?

As long as they stay in Texas they're golden

Not the issue.... Texas buys more books, in bulk, than any other customer.  So most school districts follow what Texas does in order to get text books cheaper.  So when it comes to textbooks, where Texas leads, the country follows.  Not everywhere, but in enough places that stories like this are far more scary than they appear.

Civilized places will reject books with such non-sense.  Or at least skip over those chapters.  I am sure that there are groups out there that would love to supply textbooks for free to school children.  But such books would be unsuitable for an education.


This country has a majority of people rejecting evolution and instead embracing some form of creationism, so it's not a safe bet.

Thankfully, any book with this in it would be rejected out of hand by the State of Oregon.

"Schools may teach about explanations of life on earth, including religious ones (such as "creationism"), in comparative religion or social studies classes. In science class, however, they may present only genuinely scientific critiques of, or evidence for, any explanation of life on earth, but not religious critiques (beliefs unverifiable by scientific methodology). Schools may not refuse to teach evolutionary theory in order to avoid giving offense to religion nor may they circumvent these rules by labeling as science an article of religious faith. Public schools must not teach as scientific fact or theory any religious doctrine, including "creationism," although any genuinely scientific evidence for or against any explanation of life may be taught. Just as they may neither advance nor inhibit any religious doctrine, teachers should not ridicule, for example, a student's religious explanation for life on earth."
 
2013-09-11 04:15:18 PM  

SnakeLee: Why doesn't California challenge this?  They have plenty of students


California, thankfully, does not use Texas schoolbooks.
 
2013-09-11 04:19:58 PM  

Cagey B: SnakeLee: Why doesn't California challenge this?  They have plenty of students

California, thankfully, does not use Texas schoolbooks.


About the only thing Texas textbooks are good for is setting up sniper emplacements
 
2013-09-11 04:20:27 PM  

mr_a: netizencain: http://nfs.tamu.edu/facultystaff/faculty/beathard-karen/

She teaches a class called "Food Service Mgmt "; hence she's a perfect panelist to debate evolution.

I wonder what her thoughts are on apples?


Or the perfectly-created-for-humans banana
 
2013-09-11 04:20:54 PM  

Weaver95: If this goes thru I want them to include ancient Egyptian and Norse pagan creationist beliefs in textbooks as well.


What Would Wodin Do?
 
2013-09-11 04:28:30 PM  
In the spirit of 'putting all the ideas out there' shouldn't we at least discuss using chemical weapons on Texas?
 
2013-09-11 04:30:24 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: What Would Wodin Do?


Get nailed to a tree and have his eye plucked out.
 
2013-09-11 04:31:00 PM  

Tigger: In the spirit of 'putting all the ideas out there' shouldn't we at least discuss using chemical weapons on Texas?


With the sheer number of chemical plants Texas, folks might not even notice.
 
2013-09-11 04:31:55 PM  
FTA: Panelist Karen Beathard, who works in the Department of Nutrition and Food Science at Texas A&M University

I wonder how many alumni of Texas A&M want a refund
 
2013-09-11 04:32:04 PM  

BKITU: exick: "I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory," wrote Beathard

Well, at least your last name rhymes with an apt description of you.

Weathered?
Tethered?
Feathered?


ski-tard. I've heard she's not very adept at mountain sports.
 
2013-09-11 04:32:09 PM  

Blues_X


Proponents should only be able to use creation science in their family the adults' medical treatments.


I understand your point but the adults who control the situation are supposed to know better. There's no reason to make it worse for the kids who are already getting the short end of the stick by having nutbar parents.

(Hypothetically, anyway, since your idea and my suggestion are unlikely to occur.)
 
2013-09-11 04:33:06 PM  
I used to be read the "Those crazy libs hate God" stories in the news and side with the Flanders's of the world, because I thought they wouldn't do stupid shiat like this.

Now I think that Freedom From Religion outfit needs a donation.  Stupid farking Churchy McJesus assholes need to keep their (my) beliefs out of schools.  Schools are not the venues to preach faith over science, even if some portion of the science is incomplete or going through an evolution.

/See what I did there--"evolution", I said.
 
2013-09-11 04:34:32 PM  
Right along with Aesop's and the Grimm Brothers. F*ck it. Throw in all the fairy tales while you're at it. Should make for a more interesting read.
 
2013-09-11 04:34:33 PM  
Saw the word "Texas" and didn't click the link, knowing all that needs to known right there.

Texas!
 
2013-09-11 04:34:47 PM  
I am a confused foreigner...Why does the US not kick out texas out of the union  again?
 
2013-09-11 04:35:08 PM  
PS:

Dear Texas,

THIS is why you don't deserve to have a Space Shuttle.
 
2013-09-11 04:35:20 PM  
i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-09-11 04:35:33 PM  

EvilEgg: Blues_X: Proponents should only be able to use creation science in their family medical treatments.

Yay! Penicillin for all!


Abortions for others!
 
2013-09-11 04:35:42 PM  
Can universities revoke degrees after they've been granted? Because the person mentioned in TFA that has a PhD in molecular biology that is pushing creationism needs theirs taken away. No PhD, no professor job.
 
2013-09-11 04:35:50 PM  

Weaver95: If this goes thru I want them to include ancient Egyptian and Norse pagan creationist beliefs in textbooks as well.


Specifically the Egyptian ones, masturbation and all. Oh it would be glorious.
 
2013-09-11 04:36:12 PM  
"I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory," wrote Beathard.

Gravity is also just a theory. Intelligent falling is an alternative to gravity. Teach the controversy!
 
2013-09-11 04:36:22 PM  
Where do they keep all these books?  Are they in some central location, some sort of depository?
 
2013-09-11 04:37:08 PM  
The real joke is that the Creationists are also firm believers in social Darwinism.
 
2013-09-11 04:37:30 PM  

boue67


I am a confused foreigner...Why does the US not kick out texas out of the union again?


Because we don't want to get our shoes dirty.
 
2013-09-11 04:37:42 PM  
America, this is why the rest of the world points and laughs at you.
 
2013-09-11 04:37:43 PM  
Secede, you bastards.
 
2013-09-11 04:38:23 PM  
How about no. Does "no" work for you? Just no.
 
2013-09-11 04:39:05 PM  
Gaaahh! WTF, Texas?

/never go full retard
 
2013-09-11 04:39:37 PM  

gilgigamesh: We'd be better off letting australopithecus dictate our core curriculum.


But then the Texas Board of Education would stop them because australopithecus is another point of evidence of evolution.
 
GBB
2013-09-11 04:39:42 PM  

boue67: I am a confused foreigner...Why does the US not kick out texas out of the union  again?


Because they want to secede.  And, for some reason, we can't have that.   Something about the ridiculously large belt buckle and hat industry or whatnot.
 
2013-09-11 04:40:15 PM  
The taliban is alive and well and living in Texas.
 
2013-09-11 04:41:21 PM  

GBB: boue67: I am a confused foreigner...Why does the US not kick out texas out of the union  again?

Because they want to secede.  And, for some reason, we can't have that.   Something about the ridiculously large belt buckle and hat industry or whatnot.


The real reason is oil. Tejas has it. 

If they seceded, we'd bomb the shiat out of them for freedom.
 
2013-09-11 04:41:33 PM  
In Texas your choices for a decent education are to send your child to a private school or home school.  If you are lucky you can get a spot in a charter school but its a hellova waiting list.  The public school system is basically a child storage unit for when you go to work.  The southern states generally fight tooth and nail on who gets to be the worst at giving funding for public education.
 
2013-09-11 04:42:45 PM  
She works at the Department of Nutrition and Food Science. Wow, she actually has a job in which she studies potato.
 
2013-09-11 04:43:42 PM  
There are very, very few people I genuinely hate - but these reviewers and their perverse determination to warp the minds of other people's children are some of them.

I detest everything they stand for.
 
2013-09-11 04:47:58 PM  
This is just a single person. So lets go ahead and assume this is how all Texans think.
 
2013-09-11 04:50:33 PM  

cfroelic: Where do they keep all these books?  Are they in some central location, some sort of depository?


i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-11 04:52:30 PM  
Of course, we should also teach homeopathy and chiropractic in med school, alchemy in chemistry, flat-Earth in geology, Holocaust denial in history...

Or, alternatively, fire these retarded farkwits. People who do not know what science is should be completely disqualified from deciding what to teach our children.
 
2013-09-11 04:53:48 PM  
Creationism is not science, therefore it doesn't belong in a science book or class.  How hard is that to understand?  Titian's use of the color red in his painting is interesting to know, but that doesn't mean it belongs in a Biology class either.
 
2013-09-11 04:55:10 PM  

LordJiro: alchemy in chemistry


images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-09-11 04:55:47 PM  

LordJiro: Of course, we should also teach homeopathy and chiropractic in med school, alchemy in chemistry, flat-Earth in geology, Holocaust denial in history...

Or, alternatively, fire these retarded farkwits. People who do not know what science is should be completely disqualified from deciding what to teach our children.


I think they should just be barred from receiving any medical care based on techniques developed after 1859.
 
2013-09-11 04:56:01 PM  

PsyLord: FTA: Panelist Karen Beathard, who works in the Department of Nutrition and Food Science at Texas A&M University

I wonder how many alumni of Texas A&M want a refund


Know how to get an aggy off of your porch?
Pay him for the pizza.
 
2013-09-11 04:56:33 PM  
Fundies don't like evolution because, among other reasons, it does away with the Fall in the Garden of Eden, and therefore the need for redemption, thus making the sacrifice on the Cross completely unnecessary, and invalidating the entire Bible as worthless superstition. And it pretty much takes God out of the picture.

I readily concede this argument to them. In fact, that's where I say "I'm glad we agree on this crucial point. Cocktail?"
 
2013-09-11 04:56:52 PM  

grumpfuff: specifically the Egyptian ones, masturbation and all.



Go on...
 
2013-09-11 04:57:24 PM  
Check out The Revisionaries if you want to see the end goal, it's on netflix . A lot of textbooks are used nationwide and Texas has a lot of pull with the publishers because of their large population. A couple of creationists in Texas may result in creationism appearing in textbooks across the country.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_revisionaries_2012/
 
2013-09-11 04:57:30 PM  
To anyone with netflix, go see 'the revisionaries'.  It plods a little but really shows how Texas is responsible for editing textbooks for the rest of the nation.  It also shows some of the troglodyte personalties involved in the process pushing this country towards a theocracy, or alternative, being supressed by non-christians.
 
2013-09-11 04:58:23 PM  
"I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory,"

You really ought to educate yourself on what the term theory means in a scientific context:

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.

"As an educator, parent, and grandparent, I feel very firmly that 'creation science' based on Biblical principles should be incorporated into every Biology book that is up for adoption."

I agree - Creation Science should absolutely be discussed in the textbooks to ensure that the students get all the facts.  Here's a good starting point:

Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution.  The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes. Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.
 
2013-09-11 04:58:45 PM  
i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-11 04:59:03 PM  
I DEMAND THAT SCHOOLS TEACH MY THEORY OF THE BRONTOSAURUS!

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-09-11 04:59:30 PM  
maramos,
You think like me. I like you.
 
2013-09-11 05:00:07 PM  
Maybe that is why the books are reviewed by a panel and not one person.
 
2013-09-11 05:00:30 PM  

Lamberts Ho Man: "As an educator, parent, and grandparent, I feel very firmly that 'creation science' based on Biblical principles should be incorporated into every Biology book that is up for adoption."

I agree - Creation Science should absolutely be discussed in the textbooks to ensure that the students get all the facts. Here's a good starting point:

Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes. Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.


"Okay, today we're going to learn everything scientific about creationism and intelligent design. [BEAT] Okay, that's everything I have on that subject. Now let's go on to evolution."
 
2013-09-11 05:03:21 PM  
How about NO!
 
2013-09-11 05:04:06 PM  
My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!
 
2013-09-11 05:04:20 PM  
"Panelists do not necessarily have to have a background in science, despite the fact that they are tasked with reviewing biology textbooks."

Well isn't that nice.
 
2013-09-11 05:04:31 PM  
Karen B. in TFA: "I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory.

You have no idea what scientific theory is.

As an educator,

You teach food service mgmt. How does that qualify you to decide what is/isn't science?

parent,and grandparent,

Completely irrelevant. Why do so many parents think the mere fact of them spawning qualifies them to judge what should or shouldn't be taught in a science classroom? Am I missing something? I don't have children. When you manage to reproduce, is scientific knowledge instantly beamed into your brain? Why would you think that you know much about it? What makes you an expert? When you want some idea what the weather will be like in four days, do you check a forecast from a meteorologist or go outside and stare at the sky? If your child needs his appendix taken out, do you take him to the doctor or perform the operation yourself? If your husband has a nasty toothache, does he go to the dentist or hand you a drill and tell you to get to work?

I feel very firmly that 'creation science' based on Biblical principles should be incorporated into every Biology book that is up for adoption."

It's not science. Keep it out of science classrooms, you farking theocrat.

boue67: I am a confused foreigner...Why does the US not kick out texas out of the union  again?


Oil.
Though if we kicked them out, we could invade. hmmm....

/are you pondering what I'm pondering?
 
2013-09-11 05:04:31 PM  

EvilEgg: Blues_X: Proponents should only be able to use creation science in their family medical treatments.

Yay! Penicillin for all!


The Bible doesn't say anything about using antibiotics. So no medicine for you.
 
2013-09-11 05:05:16 PM  
Teach both; let the students decide.

/ and by teach both; I ment criticize the hell out of everyone who believes the world wasn't created by a higher power.

// not serious
 
2013-09-11 05:05:42 PM  
Keep it up, assholes, and we're going to get our own tag.
 
2013-09-11 05:06:20 PM  
I think we have found the only positive for school budget cuts. "Hey kids, we know you're using textbooks that are 15 years old because we can't afford new ones, but at least you don't have to learn about creationism in science class!"
 
2013-09-11 05:06:45 PM  

ManateeGag: how are these children going to exist in the real world?


I believe in evolution, think the universe most likely began with a big bang almost 13.8 billion years ago, and that there is no higher power coordinating the universe.

And, honestly, I think the only tangible difference between my life and those people's is that I get to sleep in on Sunday.

Ignorance is bad, but this particular ignorance will have very little impact on their lives.
 
2013-09-11 05:06:56 PM  

LordJiro: alchemy in chemistry


is this the teacher?
venturefans.org
 
2013-09-11 05:08:01 PM  

big pig peaches: Maybe that is why the books are reviewed by a panel and not one person.


Because committees are where we expect good things to come from?

www.piccer.nl

/None of us are as stupid as all of us
//Also how the platypus came into being
 
2013-09-11 05:08:03 PM  
Here I sit, buns a flexin', giving birth to another Texan.
 
2013-09-11 05:08:36 PM  
I'll be real honest a moment.

This whole damn thing really depresses me, even though the law is very clearly on the side of science.

That we still have to debate this issue every freaking month it seems; when the evidence is so goddamn overwhelming regarding the fact that life evolved it may as well be the air you breath, the sun in the sky, and the ground beneath your feet.

I think I'll post funny pictures now

i457.photobucket.com

i457.photobucket.com
i457.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-11 05:08:40 PM  

WI241TH: ManateeGag: how are these children going to exist in the real world?

Apparently they get jobs at Texas A&M

Panelist Karen Beathard, who works in the Department of Nutrition and Food Science at Texas A&M University, critiqued the lack of creationism reflected in the textbooks.


What is she, the lunch lady? How do these people get through grade school without knowing what a scientific theory is?
 
2013-09-11 05:09:12 PM  

maramos: Check out The Revisionaries if you want to see the end goal, it's on netflix . A lot of textbooks are used nationwide and Texas has a lot of pull with the publishers because of their large population. A couple of creationists in Texas may result in creationism appearing in textbooks across the country.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_revisionaries_2012/


Fortunately, printing is a lot cheaper and easier than it used to be. Computers and advances in printing technology make it possible for a publishing company to make variations on a textbook without increasing the cost very much. This is already happening, though I don't have a link handy.
 
2013-09-11 05:10:01 PM  
Dear Texas, you seem to be doing your damnedest in your attempt to aggressively not grasp what "Science" means.

Please take positive action on this front and remove all people in your state who advocate 'creation science' from all medical care.

Thank you... The rest of us.
 
2013-09-11 05:10:32 PM  

Blues_X: Proponents should only be able to use creation science in their family medical treatments.



img201.imageshack.us
 
2013-09-11 05:12:49 PM  
i43.tinypic.com

/oblig
 
2013-09-11 05:13:23 PM  
Every school child in America has access to the internet and the best information available. You can put it in their text books but all you'll end up doing is instilling a great mistrust and skepticism in them for your institutions.

truth always wins eventually
 
2013-09-11 05:13:30 PM  

Nhojwolfe: This is just a single person. So lets go ahead and assume this is how all Texans think.


This person got on a panel deciding policy for public schools. Ostensibly this means that there is some chain of responsibility going back to a popular vote or an elected official. This kind of story about Texas and textbooks is not new. It follows* that the majority populace of Texas is at least not sufficiently opposed to this kind of shiat to keep it from happening.

Yeah, generalizations suck, but in this case, there's at least some sound logical reasoning. I have the utmost respect for those in Texas who oppose this kind of thinking, but they don't seem to be gaining a whole lot of ground, at least as viewed through the lens of national media. I hope the voices of reason prevail and they gain more influence.

* I grant that I am being wildly idealistic about American democracy here...
 
2013-09-11 05:14:24 PM  
'Only a theory'

As opposed to what?
 
2013-09-11 05:14:41 PM  
If you believe that in virgins giving birth, then you have no business talking about what should or shouldn't be in a science textbook.
 
2013-09-11 05:14:57 PM  
why haven't we switched to individualized computer-driven instruction yet? The technology has existed for 30!+ years.

Also open source textbooks are the future.
 
2013-09-11 05:15:13 PM  

hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!


Science is about teaching the facts.

If it said "At one time people believed a supernatural being created all life, but science has shown that life has evolved over billions of years to arrive where it is today", that's fine.  It's similar to what is taught about alchemy when going over the history of chemistry.  Adding in "You can choose to believe whatever you want" is clouding the issue, and doing a great disservice to the student.

Yes, they can indeed believe what they want, but the facts still stand.  Creationism is wrong, and creation science is not science.

There is a lot of interesting things to cover about the history of evolution, but there is no need to indulge fantasy.
 
2013-09-11 05:15:27 PM  

gilgigamesh: Superstitious, prancing stone age savages. And where Texas goes in education textbooks, so goes the nation.

We'd be better off letting australopithecus dictate our core curriculum. At least kids would learn some practical things about nuts and berries and shiat.


Nah, I hear that  australopithecus would have been sick of us. Debating how we're here, they're catching deer (we're catching viruses).
 
2013-09-11 05:16:58 PM  

MrLint: Dear Texas, you seem to be doing your damnedest in your attempt to aggressively not grasp what "Science" means.


That's the core of the problem - it's self perpetuating.  They don't understand science therefore they don't understand science.
 
2013-09-11 05:17:11 PM  
I agree, just as soon as Creation "Science" can be subjected to the scientific method.
 
2013-09-11 05:17:33 PM  
They need to just admit that their entire belief system is founded on brainwashing children before they're mature enough to think for themselves. This is no secret. Everyone 'outside the compound' sees it. It's why kids are constantly targeted for religious exposure via books, events, activities, etc. About ten times the rate of adults. I'd put money on it.

I think the sad part is these people really believe they're doing harm to the child by not forcing Jesus down their throats every chance they get. Like Jesus is a magic vitamin.

//Imagine a world where religious influence of a minor was illegal.
 
2013-09-11 05:18:26 PM  

hardinparamedic: GBB: boue67: I am a confused foreigner...Why does the US not kick out texas out of the union  again?

Because they want to secede.  And, for some reason, we can't have that.   Something about the ridiculously large belt buckle and hat industry or whatnot.

The real reason is oil. Tejas has it. 

If they seceded, we'd bomb the shiat out of them for freedom.


Sounds like win-win to me...
/they need a reset...
 
2013-09-11 05:18:28 PM  

hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!


Was it a science textbook? Then it did you a great disservice by putting those ideas on equal footing. The whole farking point of science is to determine what explanation objective evidence supports, not to "choose whatever you want to believe".
 
2013-09-11 05:20:04 PM  

SnakeLee: Why doesn't California challenge this? They have plenty of students


I attended one of my kid's 2nd grade Back to School night last night, and was pleasantly surprised that their textbook was titled "California Science", and had a whole chapter devoted to why we know fossils are as old as they are.
 
2013-09-11 05:20:12 PM  

EvilEgg: netizencain: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ManateeGag: how are these children going to exist in the real world?

As long as they stay in Texas they're golden

Not the issue.... Texas buys more books, in bulk, than any other customer.  So most school districts follow what Texas does in order to get text books cheaper.  So when it comes to textbooks, where Texas leads, the country follows.  Not everywhere, but in enough places that stories like this are far more scary than they appear.

Civilized places will reject books with such non-sense.  Or at least skip over those chapters.


Oh, if only it were so.  netizencainis correct - Texas buys more than anyone else, so the textbooks they decide on are the ones that are published.  That's what's available in runs large enough to make a substantial price break.  You can certainly buy others - but they cost at least twice the price.

It's publishers' profit margins that determine it.  And Texas leads the way.  Straight back to the goddamn dark ages.
 
2013-09-11 05:20:42 PM  

hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!


Very much this. Some people teach that vaccines cause autism. Luckily the people looked at the information provided, without any bias from the "teacher", and decided to play it safe.

Who would want to risk autism when the alternative is infertility, maiming, disfigurement and/or death? Thanks to these brave, well informed people (who were allowed to make their own decisions) autism rates have remained relatively steady.

/Those diseases?
//Small price to pay for the children.
///God works in mysterious ways.
 
2013-09-11 05:20:51 PM  
I don't get all the fuss. So what if textbooks cite creationism as an alternative to evolution. It won't change the structures of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells ... it won't change their structures and functions. Isn't a Punnett square just a visual representation of Mendel's ideas on inheritance?

Let 'em put it in. It'll open the door for more science book revisions and additions ... I for one would like to see a chapter on Gwar's theory (definition 5).
 
2013-09-11 05:21:06 PM  
controversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.com
 
2013-09-11 05:21:15 PM  

hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!


Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?
 
2013-09-11 05:21:20 PM  
I hope these people don't ever question the theory of gravity, or else how are they goin' to keep their damn hats on their heads.

After all it's just a theory........
 
2013-09-11 05:22:18 PM  

Serious Black: Lamberts Ho Man: "As an educator, parent, and grandparent, I feel very firmly that 'creation science' based on Biblical principles should be incorporated into every Biology book that is up for adoption."

I agree - Creation Science should absolutely be discussed in the textbooks to ensure that the students get all the facts. Here's a good starting point:

Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes. Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.

"Okay, today we're going to learn everything scientific about creationism and intelligent design. [BEAT] Okay, that's everything I have on that subject. Now let's go on to evolution."


[Beat] should probably be a several hour lecture on cognitive science about why humans will maintain irrational beliefs in the face of contradicting evidence.
 
2013-09-11 05:23:05 PM  

beb004: WI241TH: ManateeGag: how are these children going to exist in the real world?

Apparently they get jobs at Texas A&M

Panelist Karen Beathard, who works in the Department of Nutrition and Food Science at Texas A&M University, critiqued the lack of creationism reflected in the textbooks.

What is she, the lunch lady? How do these people get through grade school without knowing what a scientific theory is?


Well, you start by going to school in Texas...
 
2013-09-11 05:23:37 PM  

Weaver95: If this goes thru I want them to include ancient Egyptian and Norse pagan creationist beliefs in textbooks as well.


And Greek. And Persian. And Hindu. And Shinto. And all the African animist religions. And Sioux. And Shawneee. And Apache. And Zuni. And Hopi. And Pueblo. And Mohawk. And Cherokee. And...
 
2013-09-11 05:24:37 PM  

exick: "I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory," wrote Beathard

Well, at least your last name rhymes with an apt description of you.


She should be fired from her job if there is any science involved in her department Department of Nutrition and Food Science.
 
2013-09-11 05:25:26 PM  

hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!


Exactly. Evolution is a science with no practical purpose. Peleo profs publish a paper every few years moving an extinct species around on the giant evolution wall chart.

As a science it applies perfectly to mechanical engineering.

/unless I need to worry about those bobcat kittens turning into 500 pound maneaters.
 
2013-09-11 05:26:15 PM  
New England and California, could you kindly get off your fat asses and form a single textbook-approval consortium, so that Texas will stop mattering to national education?
 
2013-09-11 05:28:07 PM  

rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?


Misaligned chakras is physics, Sm*rtass. But you're an idiot, so you get the standard minority curve adjusted grade. C-
 
2013-09-11 05:28:59 PM  

meat0918: Please Proceed.

I'd love to add yet another layer of reinforcement to the wall of separation between church and state.


but don't mess with gun rights - because that is really all the people who founded this great country cared about - that and Jesus
 
2013-09-11 05:29:08 PM  

netizencain: http://nfs.tamu.edu/facultystaff/faculty/beathard-karen/

She teaches a class called "Food Service Mgmt "; hence she's a perfect panelist to debate evolution.


Amongst her listed awards is  Fish Camp Namesake at Texas A&M University in 2003.I'll bet that's closely fought over.
 
2013-09-11 05:29:18 PM  

mr_a: netizencain: http://nfs.tamu.edu/facultystaff/faculty/beathard-karen/

She teaches a class called "Food Service Mgmt "; hence she's a perfect panelist to debate evolution.

I wonder what her thoughts are on apples?


What'll really tickle these guys' noodles is that the "apple" was most likely not an apple, but a pomegranate. So much for King James' accuracy.
 
2013-09-11 05:29:28 PM  

Galius_Persnickety: 'Only a theory'

As opposed to what?


Back in the day things that were proven and thought to be immutable were referred to as "laws." So we get Newton's 3 Laws of Motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics etc. Considering what has been discovered since then, scientists stopped calling things laws as previous laws haven't exactly proven to be immutable.

/Damn you Quantum Physics!
 
2013-09-11 05:30:00 PM  
So their argument is the science textbook doesn't contain enough magic?
 
2013-09-11 05:31:47 PM  
should have aborted
 
2013-09-11 05:32:14 PM  

mr_a: "At the same time, [evolution] is a theory," wrote Beathard...

Well OK, then, as long it is a "theory", we better damn well teach it. And while we are at it, here are a couple more, courtesy of Wikipedia.

Chiromancy:  Palm reading
Iridology: Same deal, but based on the iris.
Phrenology: Same deal, but shape of the head.



Uh, do you realize that you are arguing *against* the teaching of evolution? (were you thinking she said both creationism and evolution are theories?)  A better statement would be that the theory of evolution has perhaps the most supporting evidence of any theory ever (besides possibly gravity).  And the evidence comes from multiple fields of study: paleontology, geology, physics, chemistry, to name a few.  Creationsim has zero supporting evidence.  You have to be stone cold stupid to believe in creationism.
 
2013-09-11 05:32:59 PM  

rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?


Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.

Macroevolution is a theory based on microevolution with no hard facts or evidence.

Based on that I guess we can't teach macroevolution (dumbed down to evolution in most highschools) as a creation theory either.

For the record I do believe in macroevolution as the most logically theory, but there is no empirical evidence supporting it.
 
2013-09-11 05:33:23 PM  
"I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory,"

Well shucks, so it is.  Hey you know what else is a theory?  Gravity.  I humbly suggest you test that theory by hurling yourself off the highest building you can find.

Also you creatard morons tried this in Texas before(hi there McLeroy, read any of those textbooks you tried burning yet?) and became a global laughing stock as a result.  By all means, do so again.
 
2013-09-11 05:33:51 PM  
Texas, clinging to their Bibles and their guns.
 
2013-09-11 05:34:59 PM  
Can we just let Texas go? To hell with the cool places; losing those will be an unfortunate side effect, but we really shouldn't continue holding on to Texas.
 
2013-09-11 05:36:00 PM  

hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!


It's not about choices.  it's called science.  Science is based on evidence.  There is evidence for evolution.  There is no evidence for creation.

I'm going to teach my kids about God and the Creation story because that's my job as a parent.  I'm also going to teach them science because I know that it's the best explanation for the world works.  I see no reason why God and evolution are incompatible.

But when they go to school they better get taught science.  My beliefs aren't science.  Flatworld, phlebotomy, and turtles all the way down aren't science.  If I want my children to believe in God, it's my job to teach them that.  It's the schools job to teach them science.
 
2013-09-11 05:38:09 PM  

DerAppie: Galius_Persnickety: 'Only a theory'

As opposed to what?

Back in the day things that were proven and thought to be immutable were referred to as "laws." So we get Newton's 3 Laws of Motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics etc. Considering what has been discovered since then, scientists stopped calling things laws as previous laws haven't exactly proven to be immutable.

/Damn you Quantum Physics!


Aren't laws just a set of observable, consistent rules?
ie, we sent men to the moon using our observations about gravity, but had no working theory as to what caused it.
 
2013-09-11 05:38:49 PM  

hailin: rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?

Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.

Macroevolution is a theory based on microevolution with no hard facts or evidence.

Based on that I guess we can't teach macroevolution (dumbed down to evolution in most highschools) as a creation theory either.

For the record I do believe in macroevolution as the most logically theory, but there is no empirical evidence supporting it.


Um, yeah, there is.  There's the fossil record where, for instance, we can see land animals evolve into whales.
 
2013-09-11 05:39:42 PM  

rwfan: mr_a: "At the same time, [evolution] is a theory," wrote Beathard...

Well OK, then, as long it is a "theory", we better damn well teach it. And while we are at it, here are a couple more, courtesy of Wikipedia.

Chiromancy:  Palm reading
Iridology: Same deal, but based on the iris.
Phrenology: Same deal, but shape of the head.


Uh, do you realize that you are arguing *against* the teaching of evolution? (were you thinking she said both creationism and evolution are theories?)  A better statement would be that the theory of evolution has perhaps the most supporting evidence of any theory ever (besides possibly gravity).  And the evidence comes from multiple fields of study: paleontology, geology, physics, chemistry, to name a few.  Creationsim has zero supporting evidence.  You have to be stone cold stupid to believe in creationism.


I think the proper response to such statements is:

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-09-11 05:39:45 PM  

hailin: Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.


It's happening all around you, every time an organism reproduces. Problem is, you aren't going to live the half-million years it takes to see all the little changes add up.
 
2013-09-11 05:39:46 PM  

PsyLord: FTA: Panelist Karen Beathard, who works in the Department of Nutrition and Food Science at Texas A&M University

I wonder how many alumni of Texas A&M want a refund


If they wanted credible degrees they shouldn't have gone to a university (sic) with a cookery department in the first place.

Am I right in thinking, by the way, that the people who want the government to vet textbooks are also generally the people who profess a belief in small government?
 
2013-09-11 05:40:13 PM  
hailin:

Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.

Macroevolution is a theory based on microevolution with no hard facts or evidence.

Based on that I guess we can't teach macroevolution (dumbed down to evolution in most highschools) as a creation theory either.

For the record I do believe in macroevolution as the most logically theory, but there is no empirical evidence supporting it.


This is brilliant satire, right?

Right?
 
2013-09-11 05:40:22 PM  

PsyLord: FTA: Panelist Karen Beathard, who works in the Department of Nutrition and Food Science at Texas A&M University

I wonder how many alumni of Texas A&M want a refund


I wonder how many alumni of Texas A&M can spell refund.
 
2013-09-11 05:44:20 PM  

Nhojwolfe: This is just a single person. So lets go ahead and assume this is how all Texans think.


There are certainly intelligent Texans, mostly in Austin or Houston (no intelligent person would ever willingly live in Dallas!), but the fact that the herd votes anti science jesus freaks like perry into office means there are large swaths of the state for whom mouth breathers like these folk in TFA are accurate representations of.
 
2013-09-11 05:44:25 PM  

timujin: hailin: rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?

Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.

Macroevolution is a theory based on microevolution with no hard facts or evidence.

Based on that I guess we can't teach macroevolution (dumbed down to evolution in most highschools) as a creation theory either.

For the record I do believe in macroevolution as the most logically theory, but there is no empirical evidence supporting it.

Um, yeah, there is.  There's the fossil record where, for instance, we can see land animals evolve into whales.


No silly.. See we don't have a nice time-lapse video that conclusively shows those mammals evolving into whales!
 
2013-09-11 05:44:40 PM  
Please secede.
 
2013-09-11 05:45:42 PM  

hailin: rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?

Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.

Macroevolution is a theory based on microevolution with no hard facts or evidence.

Based on that I guess we can't teach macroevolution (dumbed down to evolution in most highschools) as a creation theory either.

For the record I do believe in macroevolution as the most logically theory, but there is no empirical evidence supporting it.


Well, here's a new species that evolved entirely in the lab:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evol ut ionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

If you want evidence for evolution, here's a good place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/

As for other explanations regarding the origin and diversity of life, name one that has *any* evidence to support it.
 
2013-09-11 05:46:18 PM  
Meh,

Only 4 of the 12 reviewers were avowed creationists, and it looks like only two really push the agenda.  Call me when its 7 out of 12.
 
2013-09-11 05:46:28 PM  

hailin: rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?

Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.

Macroevolution is a theory based on microevolution with no hard facts or evidence.

Based on that I guess we can't teach macroevolution (dumbed down to evolution in most highschools) as a creation theory either.

For the record I do believe in macroevolution as the most logically theory, but there is no empirical evidence supporting it.


Observed speciation events.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
 
2013-09-11 05:47:25 PM  

Galius_Persnickety: DerAppie: Galius_Persnickety: 'Only a theory'

As opposed to what?

Back in the day things that were proven and thought to be immutable were referred to as "laws." So we get Newton's 3 Laws of Motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics etc. Considering what has been discovered since then, scientists stopped calling things laws as previous laws haven't exactly proven to be immutable.

/Damn you Quantum Physics!

Aren't laws just a set of observable, consistent rules?
ie, we sent men to the moon using our observations about gravity, but had no working theory as to what caused it.


We sent men to the moon using an understanding of gravity that works within the confines of sending a man to the moon. Those laws/theories break down a bunch when you start trying to apply them to different sets of scenarios....like black holes, travelling at the speed of light, particle physics, etc.
 
2013-09-11 05:47:56 PM  

Ned Stark: hailin: rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?

Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.

Macroevolution is a theory based on microevolution with no hard facts or evidence.

Based on that I guess we can't teach macroevolution (dumbed down to evolution in most highschools) as a creation theory either.

For the record I do believe in macroevolution as the most logically theory, but there is no empirical evidence supporting it.

Observed speciation events.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


No no no you silly fool, he's talking about macroevolution, not speciation.. Completely different things.

/yes I've seen creatards say this.
 
2013-09-11 05:49:47 PM  

Flappyhead: Ned Stark: hailin: rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?

Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.

Macroevolution is a theory based on microevolution with no hard facts or evidence.

Based on that I guess we can't teach macroevolution (dumbed down to evolution in most highschools) as a creation theory either.

For the record I do believe in macroevolution as the most logically theory, but there is no empirical evidence supporting it.

Observed speciation events.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

No no no you silly fool, he's talking about macroevolution, not speciation.. Completely different things.

/yes I've seen creatards say this.


B...b..b..but that's only micro-speciation. Where's all the macro-speciation that these scientardos are telling us should be happening every day?!
 
2013-09-11 05:50:55 PM  
0.tqn.com

...'cause ya never know fur shurr
 
2013-09-11 05:51:30 PM  
fark Yeah !

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-09-11 05:52:45 PM  

meat0918: Science is about teaching the facts.


No, science is about:

Formulating a hypothesis - an educated guess
Testing this hypothesis - any way you can, hopefully with controls.
Does the test validate the hypothesis?  If so you have a theory!  Go you!
If not, then your hypothesis won't work.  But this might have to do with your methodology in the test.  Redo the test and confirm.
Still doesn't work?  Then write a paper saying it doesn't work.
If it works, write a paper saying it works.

People read the paper.
People test your theory and analyze your methodology.
If your methodology is good and your results are reproduced, Yay you!  Your theory is confirmed!
If not, then maybe what you did wasn't so hot.  Go re-evaluate your experiment and data.  Abandon ideas that you can't defend or at least put them on hold to be tested later with better data and methods.

Science /class/ should be about the above.  And teaching facts.  Too much of science education is about memorizing facts, IMO.

Science is a way of looking at the world more than anything.  A hunter with a spear and loincloth in the bush is more of a scientist than anyone at the Discovery Institute.  Which really doesn't discover things.

As opposed to ... religion.  Which is this:

"I have a theory about the universe!  If you doubt it, you are going to Hell!"
 
2013-09-11 05:52:50 PM  
As a PR stunt, perhaps we could have the Fark annual awards for each of the tags. -- Hey, anything to help. For dumbass of 2013, I nominate this f*ckwit.
 
2013-09-11 05:56:41 PM  

meat0918: I'll be real honest a moment.

This whole damn thing really depresses me, even though the law is very clearly on the side of science.

That we still have to debate this issue every freaking month it seems; when the evidence is so goddamn overwhelming regarding the fact that life evolved it may as well be the air you breath, the sun in the sky, and the ground beneath your feet.

I think I'll post funny pictures now

[i457.photobucket.com image 468x542]

[i457.photobucket.com image 850x304]
[i457.photobucket.com image 384x288]


You are a God among men, Sir. A GOD!
 
2013-09-11 05:57:10 PM  
Addendum:

bubo_sibiricus: meat0918: Science is about teaching the facts.

No, science is about:

Formulating a hypothesis - an educated guess
Testing this hypothesis - any way you can, hopefully with controls.
Does the test validate the hypothesis?


Insert here: redo the test and validate to see if it still works
 
2013-09-11 05:57:11 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: meat0918: Science is about teaching the facts.

No, science is about:

Formulating a hypothesis - an educated guess
Testing this hypothesis - any way you can, hopefully with controls.
Does the test validate the hypothesis?  If so you have a theory!  Go you!
If not, then your hypothesis won't work.  But this might have to do with your methodology in the test.  Redo the test and confirm.
Still doesn't work?  Then write a paper saying it doesn't work.
If it works, write a paper saying it works.

People read the paper.
People test your theory and analyze your methodology.
If your methodology is good and your results are reproduced, Yay you!  Your theory is confirmed!
If not, then maybe what you did wasn't so hot.  Go re-evaluate your experiment and data.  Abandon ideas that you can't defend or at least put them on hold to be tested later with better data and methods.

Science /class/ should be about the above.  And teaching facts.  Too much of science education is about memorizing facts, IMO.

Science is a way of looking at the world more than anything.  A hunter with a spear and loincloth in the bush is more of a scientist than anyone at the Discovery Institute.  Which really doesn't discover things.

As opposed to ... religion.  Which is this:

"I have a theory about the universe!  If you doubt it, you are going to Hell!"


Yes...

I realized that after I posted it, but got pulled away before fixing it.

Thank you.
 
2013-09-11 05:58:09 PM  
Teaching creationism as science, it's not the education you want, it's the education you deserve.
 
2013-09-11 05:58:55 PM  

Ned Stark: hailin: rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?

Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.

Macroevolution is a theory based on microevolution with no hard facts or evidence.

Based on that I guess we can't teach macroevolution (dumbed down to evolution in most highschools) as a creation theory either.

For the record I do believe in macroevolution as the most logically theory, but there is no empirical evidence supporting it.

Observed speciation events.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


Speciation is something that intrigues me, just because the lines between species are rather blurred and arbitrary. For example, domestic dogs are all considered the same species, but a variation in color can mean a different species in the wild.

Ring species are also rather interesting.
 
2013-09-11 05:58:58 PM  

meat0918: Yes...

I realized that after I posted it, but got pulled away before fixing it.

Thank you.


It was just my OCD kicking in...
 
2013-09-11 06:02:24 PM  
 
2013-09-11 06:03:45 PM  
I wonder if they are open to teaching these theories:

http://listverse.com/2013/03/08/10-alternatives-to-evolution/
 
2013-09-11 06:05:01 PM  
Ah, Texas A&M the alma mater of this fine woman and Rick Perry. Fine builder of bonfires too. I'm not a religious man, but I do pray a sink hole takes all of College Station.
 
2013-09-11 06:07:46 PM  
This "creation science" is just the latest religion-ized version of the same pseudo-science that keeps ear-candlers and crystal sellers in business. It relies on ignorance to keep itself alive.

/Back in my childhood days, Bible stories were just that: stories. They were never pushed as scientific fact, but as parables intended to fire up the imagination and illustrate concepts such as "why we should be kind to each other" or "why we shouldn't be greedy," etc. The whole "God created the heavens and earth in six days" wasn't meant as a literal scientific explanation back then.  It was intended to imply that "God is so powerful he can make an entire universe in less than a week."
 
2013-09-11 06:08:03 PM  
I guess it's kinda nice that the university is willing to provide employment to the mentally disabled. There must not be enough grocery store cart wrangler and Walmart greeter jobs to go around, so the less intelligent are forced to seek jobs in nutrition and food science.
 
2013-09-11 06:18:33 PM  

Galius_Persnickety: DerAppie: Galius_Persnickety: 'Only a theory'

As opposed to what?

Back in the day things that were proven and thought to be immutable were referred to as "laws." So we get Newton's 3 Laws of Motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics etc. Considering what has been discovered since then, scientists stopped calling things laws as previous laws haven't exactly proven to be immutable.

/Damn you Quantum Physics!

Aren't laws just a set of observable, consistent rules?
ie, we sent men to the moon using our observations about gravity, but had no working theory as to what caused it.


Well, yes. But the problem is that those rules only hold as long as we don't poke at them too much. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few decades (centuries?) someone detects faster than light particles. Considering that our senses and frames of reference are based around radiation and vibrations moving at or below light speed it would not be strange to think that we simply don't know what to look for, or where to look for them.

But let us look at Gravity. We could say that it is a natural law that mass attracts mass. This we call Gravity and it always happened before and thus it always will happen again. If we were to declare the law of gravity it would be that mass exerts a force on other mass equal to the product of the objects divided by the distance squared. (f = g(m1 * m2) / r2 iirc). This is enough to do a lot of nifty things. But what influence does radiation have? And at what wavelength? And what about that gravity map of the Earth, with the larger than assumed differences, what caused those differences? Are there materials that block/impede gravity? Or is it just that there is more or less mass in those areas? And what happens at quantum level? I'm sure I could go on for a while longer, but let's just assume that "Around here gravity always worked before and we used our flawed understanding of it to go to the moon" isn't really a basis for an universal law about gravity. At the end of the day Gravity only holds until the day we tinker with it enough to find out how to keep it from working.

Once we have a proof of concept that gravity can be cancelled things start getting interesting. It could be said that gravity still works the same way and that it is us who messed with it. This still means that there are situations in which gravity doesn't work. Considering the size of the universe and the things we don't know about (just to mention a few nice gravity related subjects) black holes and neutron stars, and what happens in and around them, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that somewhere in the vast universe the circumstances are just right to mess with gravity (even if just a little). Things happen in labs that we don't expect to happen outside of labs. Things happen outside of labs that we can't get to work inside of labs. Suddenly anti-gravity is also a natural occurrence. Does the "law" of gravity still hold? Or will it be scaled back to "the law of gravity in the neighbourhood of Earth"? Better to keep calling it a theory.

Natural laws are pretty much like a human laws. Full of loopholes, exceptions and wiggle room for people who know how to work them. Gravity always works, just don't look at sizes smaller than W, things going at speeds larger than X, have density around Y while at temperature Z with the material Z' present. Suddenly physicists aren't scientists trying to figure out how the world works but cops running a sting operation trying to catch a particle break the laws of physics. And as Fark knows, all cops are assholes.

/Shooting a mouse in the head always kills it
//Except for when it doesn't
///Hope the story makes sense
//Facts might be wrong, in this case it is the narrative that counts
/Also why we don't have the Law of Evolution despite it being a very, very, very solid piece of science
 
2013-09-11 06:20:05 PM  
I know this isn't a popular opinion but science is technically the religion of the state. It didn't start that way (maybe) but once people start looking up to the institution ( any institution for that matter) to give them the "truth", it becomes a belief system and it is very dangerous to have groups of people to believe the state is the sole bringer of truth. All scientists taken seriously by the public at large were trained in institutions approved of by the state. And if you think that " well, the state approves them to protect poor fools from snake oil salesmen." I'd remind you of how the drug war started, for our protection.
 
2013-09-11 06:23:20 PM  
Texas is like Florida's older, bigger, tougher brother who is still just as stupid.
 
2013-09-11 06:28:27 PM  

Begoggle: Texas is like Florida's older, bigger, tougher brother who is still just as stupid.


Texas is actually more stupid than Florida; it is simply less crazy.
 
2013-09-11 06:28:56 PM  

Kirk's_Toupee: I know this isn't a popular opinion but science is technically the religion of the state. It didn't start that way (maybe) but once people start looking up to the institution ( any institution for that matter) to give them the "truth", it becomes a belief system and it is very dangerous to have groups of people to believe the state is the sole bringer of truth. All scientists taken seriously by the public at large were trained in institutions approved of by the state. And if you think that " well, the state approves them to protect poor fools from snake oil salesmen." I'd remind you of how the drug war started, for our protection.


Science is the search for fact ... not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, go take a philosophy class.
 
2013-09-11 06:44:06 PM  
I wish that the panel had Professor Hubert Farnsworth on it.
 
2013-09-11 06:46:47 PM  

PsyLord: FTA: Panelist Karen Beathard, who works in the Department of Nutrition and Food Science at Texas A&M University

I wonder how many alumni of Texas A&M want a refund


There's a number of us who ARE pissed.  Many of us came in during a campus reinvestment implemented by Robert Gates when he was President of the University.  Then he became SecDef and everything went back to the good ol' boy network there.  It's sickening.
 
2013-09-11 06:47:49 PM  

rustypouch: Ned Stark: hailin: rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?

Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.

Macroevolution is a theory based on microevolution with no hard facts or evidence.

Based on that I guess we can't teach macroevolution (dumbed down to evolution in most highschools) as a creation theory either.

For the record I do believe in macroevolution as the most logically theory, but there is no empirical evidence supporting it.

Observed speciation events.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Speciation is something that intrigues me, just because the lines between species are rather blurred and arbitrary. For example, domestic dogs are all considered the same species, but a variation in color can mean a different species in the wild.

Ring species are also rather interesting.


That's not exactly the case.
All dogs are the same species because dogs will willingly mate regardless of bread and they'll produce viable offspring.
If, say, you have a population of wild Alpacas where half are all brown and half are all white but colour's the only difference, then nobody is going to claim they're two difference species.
But, if you have two populations, one all brown and one white, separated by a river AND they refuse to mate across colour lines even if the offspring are viable. Then, maybe they might be called different species.
In the second case, it's also probably true that the populations are genetically distinguishable. Even if the actually similarity is high and the difference is purely colour.
/ If they don't mate though, they won't be similar for long.
 
2013-09-11 06:52:22 PM  

kidgenius: science is technically the religion of the state.


Yeah,  technically. I mean it is like, so literally the religion of the state.  We're talking about a totally outrageous paradigm.

So science is religiously proactive, huh? It's totally "in your face"!
 
2013-09-11 06:54:17 PM  
Reason #72 that religion should be vehemently opposed and Theocrats/Christo-fascists should be belittled, ridiculed, charged with child abuse for bringing their children to a church/synagogue/other "house of God," and otherwise generally ostracized from society.
 
2013-09-11 06:56:31 PM  
I hope that the switch to e-books will curtail this problem of retarded Texans diluting the mental gene pool via manipulating book purchases.
 
2013-09-11 06:56:56 PM  

TeamEd: But, if you have two populations, one all brown and one white, separated by a river AND they refuse to mate across colour lines even if the offspring are viable. Then, maybe they might be called different species.


I always thought it was widely considered that if organisms can't produce viable/fertile offspring that they are separate species? Or are you claiming that the Klu Klux Klan are right and that they are a different species from black folks? There is hardly ever a river in play, but maybe living on the other side of the tracks works as well.
 
2013-09-11 06:59:56 PM  

vactech: kidgenius: science is technically the religion of the state.

Yeah,  technically. I mean it is like, so literally the religion of the state.  We're talking about a totally outrageous paradigm.

So science is religiously proactive, huh? It's totally "in your face"!


Hey now, watch the quoting! I didn't say that or support it :)
 
2013-09-11 07:02:20 PM  
memecrunch.com
 
2013-09-11 07:06:43 PM  

kidgenius: vactech: kidgenius: science is technically the religion of the state.

Yeah,  technically. I mean it is like, so literally the religion of the state.  We're talking about a totally outrageous paradigm.

So science is religiously proactive, huh? It's totally "in your face"!

Hey now, watch the quoting! I didn't say that or support it :)


Wow, just wow! Total random, meta-quote fail.

My bad.
 
2013-09-11 07:06:47 PM  

Nhojwolfe: This is just a single person. So lets go ahead and assume this is how all Texans think.


Unfortunately not.  Texas fundamentalists have pushed this stance on textbooks for years now.
 
2013-09-11 07:09:59 PM  

hailin: rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?

Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.



Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

These articles have been on the web for 20 years.  For two decades, the information you requested has been available through a simple web search.  That is very likely longer than some of the people participating in this thread have been alive.

Now that information has been handed to you on a silver platter; all you need to do is click those links.  After now, you may never again make the claim that there is no evidence of macroevolution.  Please be sure to share this information with anyone else who requests it.

Glad I could help.
 
2013-09-11 07:21:25 PM  

PunGent: Nhojwolfe: This is just a single person. So lets go ahead and assume this is how all Texans think.

Unfortunately not.  Texas fundamentalists have pushed this stance on textbooks for years now.


This comes up every few years and yet there still are main stream science textbooks that cover creationism. Even if Texas did demand it, and they haven't, the northeast and northwest would say "no thanks, we'll shop elsewhere" and the publishers know it.

Stop being a bunch if worry warts.

/now history books, that we can argue about.
 
2013-09-11 07:22:01 PM  
Low IQ people can be counted on to vote for these pandering politicians.
If voters had to pass an IQ test with a score of 90 and above, none of these religion-spouting grifters would  stand a chance. That's why these pols want to dumb down education. More stupid people=more votes.

Politicians are farkin' scum.
 
2013-09-11 07:43:00 PM  
Monotheism was one of the worst inventions... ever.
 
2013-09-11 07:57:40 PM  

JuggleGeek: If you believe that in virgins giving birth, then you have no business talking about what should or shouldn't be in a science textbook.


I believe in parthenogenesis. Does that count? Maybe Mary was secretly a lizard. (Have fun, conspiracy loonies!)

No, I am not a scientist, nor would I claim to be. And in my unscientific opinion, Texas suffers from an epidemic of derp. What's in the water down there?
 
2013-09-11 08:01:41 PM  

Galius_Persnickety: DerAppie: Galius_Persnickety: 'Only a theory'

As opposed to what?

Back in the day things that were proven and thought to be immutable were referred to as "laws." So we get Newton's 3 Laws of Motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics etc. Considering what has been discovered since then, scientists stopped calling things laws as previous laws haven't exactly proven to be immutable.

/Damn you Quantum Physics!

Aren't laws just a set of observable, consistent rules?
ie, we sent men to the moon using our observations about gravity, but had no working theory as to what caused it.


In science "Laws" are short, simple, and useful rules that are not necessarily strictly true. They can be useful approximations, like the Ideal Gas Law, which is actually never exactly true (because no real gas is an ideal gas).
 
2013-09-11 08:09:30 PM  

big pig peaches: PunGent: Nhojwolfe: This is just a single person. So lets go ahead and assume this is how all Texans think.

Unfortunately not.  Texas fundamentalists have pushed this stance on textbooks for years now.

This comes up every few years and yet there still are main stream science textbooks that cover creationism. Even if Texas did demand it, and they haven't, the northeast and northwest would say "no thanks, we'll shop elsewhere" and the publishers know it.

Stop being a bunch if worry warts.

/now history books, that we can argue about.


Sadly Texas has tried that as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQx_2j5nXuc
 
2013-09-11 08:11:35 PM  
And this is why school texts book selection needs federal over sight  and veto power to keep yahoos like these from forcing quasi religious junk science,
 
2013-09-11 08:13:02 PM  
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman once reviewed textbooks for California.   Here ya go.  It's worth a read.
 
2013-09-11 08:14:48 PM  

revrendjim: Galius_Persnickety: DerAppie: Galius_Persnickety: 'Only a theory'

As opposed to what?

Back in the day things that were proven and thought to be immutable were referred to as "laws." So we get Newton's 3 Laws of Motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics etc. Considering what has been discovered since then, scientists stopped calling things laws as previous laws haven't exactly proven to be immutable.

/Damn you Quantum Physics!

Aren't laws just a set of observable, consistent rules?
ie, we sent men to the moon using our observations about gravity, but had no working theory as to what caused it.

In science "Laws" are short, simple, and useful rules that are not necessarily strictly true. They can be useful approximations, like the Ideal Gas Law, which is actually never exactly true (because no real gas is an ideal gas).


Another way to explain it is that a law can be expresses in one equation or one sentence, while a theory requires a book, or many books. For example, the classical theory of electrodynamics can be boiled down to four laws (Maxwell's equations) plus a few definitions, that altogether can be printed on a half-sheet of paper. On the other hand, here is a good introduction to the theory of electromagnetism. It runs over 800 pages.
 
2013-09-11 08:16:37 PM  
While they're going on about creationism, they also need to explain how Anakin was considered to be too old to start Jedi training, when Luke wasn't.  They also need some sort of theory on how the Simpsons halloween episodes can happen when a lot of the repercussions that should happen from those events don't carry over into other episodes.  Like creationism, the answers to these things don't show up in science textbooks for some reason.  It's almost like they're intentionally leaving out fictional events.
 
2013-09-11 08:17:49 PM  

zzrhardy: Monotheism was one of the worst inventions... ever.


I know, right?  It doesn't unlock any buildings, the Organized Religion civic has ridiculously high upkeep.  I tend to go for Horseback Riding myself.
 
2013-09-11 08:24:32 PM  
And unicorns.  Why don't more of our children's textbooks teach about unicorns?
 
2013-09-11 08:26:04 PM  

gilgigamesh: Superstitious, prancing stone age savages. And where Texas goes in education textbooks, so goes the nation.


Is it too late to give Texas back to Mexico?
 
2013-09-11 08:26:21 PM  

ultraholland: Can we just let Texas go? To hell with the cool places; losing those will be an unfortunate side effect, but we really shouldn't continue holding on to Texas.


Agreed.  Relocate Austin and let the rest of the state go.
 
2013-09-11 08:28:05 PM  

ciberido: And unicorns.  Why don't more of our children's textbooks teach about unicorns?


i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-11 08:31:32 PM  

big pig peaches: PunGent: Nhojwolfe: This is just a single person. So lets go ahead and assume this is how all Texans think.

Unfortunately not.  Texas fundamentalists have pushed this stance on textbooks for years now.

This comes up every few years and yet there still are main stream science textbooks that cover creationism. Even if Texas did demand it, and they haven't, the northeast and northwest would say "no thanks, we'll shop elsewhere" and the publishers know it.

Stop being a bunch if worry warts.

/now history books, that we can argue about.


Problem is, they've won in the past, and it's not just evolution.  So, I'll worry my warts, thank you very much.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/03/29/creationists-on-texas-school-board -p revail-watered-down-science-coming-to-your-kids-textbooks/
 
2013-09-11 08:34:47 PM  

ciberido: gilgigamesh: Superstitious, prancing stone age savages. And where Texas goes in education textbooks, so goes the nation.

Is it too late to give Texas back to Mexico?


Do we really want to do that to Mexico?
 
2013-09-11 08:37:10 PM  
I wish the publishers were strong enough to stand up and say, "You know what, Texas?  We're not dancing your little teatarded tune anymore.  You get real Science and real History and real Literature.  You want something custom? You bootstrappy farkwads are on your own."

Or other states refuse to buy the TX-approved versions of anything.
 
2013-09-11 08:43:11 PM  
Soooo...they don't actually know what "theory" means, do they?

Try watching "The Revisionaries" if you really, really want to get even more pissed about this topic.
 
2013-09-11 08:45:20 PM  
 
2013-09-11 09:01:37 PM  

a particular individual: maramos: Check out The Revisionaries if you want to see the end goal, it's on netflix . A lot of textbooks are used nationwide and Texas has a lot of pull with the publishers because of their large population. A couple of creationists in Texas may result in creationism appearing in textbooks across the country.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_revisionaries_2012/

Fortunately, printing is a lot cheaper and easier than it used to be. Computers and advances in printing technology make it possible for a publishing company to make variations on a textbook without increasing the cost very much. This is already happening, though I don't have a link handy.


Textbooks are not chosen by price.
 
2013-09-11 09:02:09 PM  
exick: "I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory," wrote Beathard

I honestly cannot comprehend how this "evolution is just a theory" nonsense continues to persist. By now I would think that even the densest mouth-breathing nematode in the world would understand what a theory is in the context of science.

When we can't even get a simple majority of people to understand something this basic, perhaps we should just give up on trying to give them an education. Let them have their damn stone age.
 
2013-09-11 09:04:53 PM  

RoomFullOfMonkeys: exick: "I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory," wrote Beathard

I honestly cannot comprehend how this "evolution is just a theory" nonsense continues to persist. By now I would think that even the densest mouth-breathing nematode in the world would understand what a theory is in the context of science.

When we can't even get a simple majority of people to understand something this basic, perhaps we should just give up on trying to give them an education. Let them have their damn stone age.


A lot of nonsense continues to persist. Wiki has a page devoted to it.
 
2013-09-11 09:39:14 PM  

Kirk's_Toupee: I know this isn't a popular opinion but science is technically the religion of the state. It didn't start that way (maybe) but once people start looking up to the institution ( any institution for that matter) to give them the "truth", it becomes a belief system and it is very dangerous to have groups of people to believe the state is the sole bringer of truth. All scientists taken seriously by the public at large were trained in institutions approved of by the state. And if you think that " well, the state approves them to protect poor fools from snake oil salesmen." I'd remind you of how the drug war started, for our protection.


The reason that it's not a popular opinion is that it's wrong.
 
2013-09-11 09:45:36 PM  

hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!


Well, there's your problem: presenting the issue as if it were a matter of choosing which paradigm you wish to believe rather than understanding the difference between scientific theory and a myth with no scientific backing.  That's not "letting students actually think for themselves."

Letting students actually think for themselves would involve presenting the facts and not trying to pitch creationism or "intelligent design" as if they were valid scientific theories. And if the student then said, "I choose to believe in this religious story and reject science," well, ok --- but they still better be able to pass the science test.
 
2013-09-11 09:56:35 PM  

rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?


We might, if Jenny McCarthy gets on a school board.
 
2013-09-11 09:56:53 PM  
img389.imageshack.us
 
2013-09-11 09:58:29 PM  

UsikFark: a particular individual: maramos: Check out The Revisionaries if you want to see the end goal, it's on netflix . A lot of textbooks are used nationwide and Texas has a lot of pull with the publishers because of their large population. A couple of creationists in Texas may result in creationism appearing in textbooks across the country.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_revisionaries_2012/

Fortunately, printing is a lot cheaper and easier than it used to be. Computers and advances in printing technology make it possible for a publishing company to make variations on a textbook without increasing the cost very much. This is already happening, though I don't have a link handy.

Textbooks are not chosen by price.


Not very familiar with public education are you?
 
2013-09-11 09:58:35 PM  

Snarcasm: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Exactly. Evolution is a science with no practical purpose. Peleo profs publish a paper every few years moving an extinct species around on the giant evolution wall chart.

As a science it applies perfectly to mechanical engineering.

/unless I need to worry about those bobcat kittens turning into 500 pound maneaters.


I would award you 10/10 if your name didn't give the game away.  Or rather, I probably would have bitten hard and not given you a score until much later.
 
2013-09-11 09:59:17 PM  

Cpl.D: /Because bearing false witness is OK if it gets you Jesus points


"But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice" - Philippians 1:18

Deception is okay when you're doing it for Jesus.
 
2013-09-11 10:03:41 PM  

Xenomech: Cpl.D: /Because bearing false witness is OK if it gets you Jesus points

"But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice" - Philippians 1:18

Deception is okay when you're doing it for Jesus.


I think you are stretching the interpretation of that one. False motives =/= false words.
 
2013-09-11 10:04:10 PM  
I still don't understand why we haven't just given Texas back to Mexico.
 
2013-09-11 10:09:42 PM  

Flappyhead: UsikFark: a particular individual: maramos: Check out The Revisionaries if you want to see the end goal, it's on netflix . A lot of textbooks are used nationwide and Texas has a lot of pull with the publishers because of their large population. A couple of creationists in Texas may result in creationism appearing in textbooks across the country.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_revisionaries_2012/

Fortunately, printing is a lot cheaper and easier than it used to be. Computers and advances in printing technology make it possible for a publishing company to make variations on a textbook without increasing the cost very much. This is already happening, though I don't have a link handy.

Textbooks are not chosen by price.

Not very familiar with public education are you?


I was thinking of college textbooks.
 
2013-09-11 10:13:29 PM  

Ned Stark: Xenomech: Cpl.D: /Because bearing false witness is OK if it gets you Jesus points

"But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice" - Philippians 1:18

Deception is okay when you're doing it for Jesus.

I think you are stretching the interpretation of that one. False motives =/= false words.


Yes, I am stretching that one to fit the argument.   As someone who was eventually saved from a life in Christ's chains, I've had many, many years of practice.

That passage would be more applicable to, say, Catholic priests wanting to preach in order to get some sweet, sweet boy-cock.
 
2013-09-11 10:48:40 PM  

Xenomech: Cpl.D: /Because bearing false witness is OK if it gets you Jesus points

"But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice" - Philippians 1:18

Deception is okay when you're doing it for Jesus.


Why don't we let the founder of Intelligent Design defend himself in his own words...

lh5.googleusercontent.com
ID is not, and has never been, about alternatives to science. It's been about slipping in a Christian message into schools, and teaching kids who may or may not be Christians about said faith, under the guise of "teaching the controversy."

You know what? I have no problem with teaching comparative religion. I have no problem with electives to study the Bible even. But to try to slip in a Christian message, when not all the kids are Christians, or even People of the Book even, that breaks the whole separation of Church and State. Do it in your private schools. I have no problem with Catholic schools, or even the half assery that winds up in a lot of Baptist schools, but don't look to the tax payers to pay for it. Fund your own damn private schools, and STOP looking for handouts to proselytize to folks who AREN'T of your faith. Pick yourselves up by your big beefy bootstraps, fund your own schools, and stop looking for everyone else to give you handout, because you love Jesus.
 
2013-09-11 11:03:27 PM  
I went to a parochial school K-8 & even they didn't teach creationism in science class.
 
2013-09-11 11:04:55 PM  

DerAppie: But let us look at Gravity.


Well, we can't really discuss gravity without discussing the other theory, you know.

I speak, of course, of Intelligent Direction, or ID for short, which is the theory that things fall to the Earth (or other large objects) because there is a Director guiding them so. Someone as learned as you should be aware that gravity is merely a theory, not a fact, and that other alternatives merit free and open discussion.
 
2013-09-11 11:06:47 PM  

Antimatter: So their argument is the science textbook doesn't contain enough magic?


It's all in the air.
media.salon.com
I'm looking forward to seeing what the Texas-approved textbooks say about magnetism.
 
2013-09-11 11:52:14 PM  

hailin: rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?

Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.


Well, that was easy.

I'll assume from this point on that you're a troll, since you could have gotten this for yourself in two minutes with a simple search.
 
2013-09-11 11:57:40 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: meat0918: Science is about teaching the facts.

No, science is about:

Formulating a hypothesis - an educated guess
Testing this hypothesis - any way you can, hopefully with controls.
Does the test validate the hypothesis?  If so you have a theory!  Go you!
If not, then your hypothesis won't work.  But this might have to do with your methodology in the test.  Redo the test and confirm.
Still doesn't work?  Then write a paper saying it doesn't work.
If it works, write a paper saying it works.

People read the paper.
People test your theory and analyze your methodology.
If your methodology is good and your results are reproduced, Yay you!  Your theory is confirmed!
If not, then maybe what you did wasn't so hot.  Go re-evaluate your experiment and data.  Abandon ideas that you can't defend or at least put them on hold to be tested later with better data and methods.

Science /class/ should be about the above.  And teaching facts.  Too much of science education is about memorizing facts, IMO.

Science is a way of looking at the world more than anything.  A hunter with a spear and loincloth in the bush is more of a scientist than anyone at the Discovery Institute.  Which really doesn't discover things.

As opposed to ... religion.  Which is this:

"I have a theory about the universe!  If you doubt it, you are going to Hell!"


I have a theory: it could be bunnies.

/And what's with all the carrots?
 
2013-09-12 12:43:58 AM  
The point isn't that they don't understand science, it's that they reject it altogether. The firewall between science and religion is what seperates natural philosophy from science and came about so that church hierarchies would stop killing the naturalists. The scientific method was established so that God could never be studied. Anything that could not be directly observed would be outside the realm of science. This has been true since the days of Sir Francis Bacon who established the ground rules.

The fundies of every religion find this more threatening than the competition from other faiths. At the time England and Europe as a whole were already tired of religious war (though the politicians of the day sure weren't) and over the years fundies slowly were encouraged to come to North America to seek the sheltered lives of theocracy they sought. The reason why we even have freedom of religion is because if you moved from one colony to another you had to change flavors of Christianity. Using the wrong hymnal was a capital offense. The Great Awakening was the result of a couple of radicals who had been kicked out of European countries for trying to restart religious warfare. I helped my mom with editing a paper she did on this for her Master's of Divinity. It truly was an eye opener to me about the absolute hatred and fear fundie institutions have regarding scientific methods. To them just the concept of the scientific method is a key part of the Deceiver's hold on the world. It is inimical to not include the Divine in every explanation of natural processes.

And since "the sins of the father will be visited upon his children into the third and fourth generation" it is not even about today's scientists. It is about how every great grandchild of a secularist is going to pay for that sin even if he or she is Born Again.

This is the crux of the matter. Fundies cannot bear to be part of a community with non-fundies. They must always insert religion into everything. Having it in the classroom is nonnegotiable because nothing else is important to teach. And science is the most important subject to inject it into, to turn the Devil's bastion into a cultural exorcism.

Nothing frightens me more than fundies of any faith. A true fundie will never truly relent in a battle like this. There is no compromise possible when souls are at stake.
 
2013-09-12 01:40:23 AM  
I think scientists should get together and, just this once, decide to call Evolution a law instead of a theory.

They will all know it isn't, but at least it would shut up the "its only a theory" morans.
 
2013-09-12 01:53:17 AM  

rustypouch: Speciation is something that intrigues me, just because the lines between species are rather blurred and arbitrary. For example, domestic dogs are all considered the same species, but a variation in color can mean a different species in the wild.

Ring species are also rather interesting.


The line between one species and another is supposed to be whether or not a male from population A will breed with a female from population B (assuming the two groups in question reproduce sexually).  Obviously that's not a perfect criterion because not all species have two sexes, or reproduce sexually.  Less obviously, sometimes the exact meaning of "will" comes into question.  "Can" alone is not enough; if you have a population A that COULD breed with population B but DOESN'T when given the chance (e.g., chooses not to), then you can say they're different species.  (Not getting the opportunity, because they're on separate continents or whatever, doesn't count.)

In the case of dogs, since any fertile male dog can breed with any fertile female dog (and will, given the chance), all dogs are the same species.  If pugs refused to have sex with German Sheperds, then you could say that they were separate species, even if they could be made to reproduce (through in vitro fertilization).

It's been speculated that one could cross-breed humans and chimpanzees, it might be that our DNA is similar enough that human sperm could impregnate a female chimp --- but even if that were true, the fact that we don't attempt it means we're separate species.
 
2013-09-12 02:26:26 AM  
You will NEVER be permitted to secede!!

Your backwardness is a self-solving equation and the answer to that equation is destruction.
 
2013-09-12 04:03:28 AM  

UsikFark: RoomFullOfMonkeys: exick: "I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory," wrote Beathard

I honestly cannot comprehend how this "evolution is just a theory" nonsense continues to persist. By now I would think that even the densest mouth-breathing nematode in the world would understand what a theory is in the context of science.

When we can't even get a simple majority of people to understand something this basic, perhaps we should just give up on trying to give them an education. Let them have their damn stone age.

A lot of nonsense continues to persist. Wiki has a page devoted to it.


kidgenius: She should be fired from her job if there is any science involved in her department Department of Nutrition and Food Science.


patrick767: Karen B. in TFA: "I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory.

You have no idea what scientific theory is.


timujin: beb004: WI241TH: ManateeGag: how are these children going to exist in the real world?

Apparently they get jobs at Texas A&M

Panelist Karen Beathard, who works in the Department of Nutrition and Food Science at Texas A&M University, critiqued the lack of creationism reflected in the textbooks.

What is she, the lunch lady? How do these people get through grade school without knowing what a scientific theory is?

Well, you start by going to school in Texas...


ciberido: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Well, there's your problem: presenting the issue as if it were a matter of choosing which paradigm you wish to believe rather than understanding the difference between scientific theory and a myth with no scientific backing.  That's not "letting students actually think for themselves."

Letting students actually think for themselves would involve presenting the facts and not trying to pitch creationism or "intelligent design" as if they were valid scientific theories. And if the student then said, "I choose to believe in this religious story and reject science," well, ok --- but they still better be able to pass the science test.


Serious Black: "I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory," wrote Beathard.

Gravity is also just a theory. Intelligent falling is an alternative to gravity. Teach the controversy!


Lamberts Ho Man: "I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory,"

You really ought to educate yourself on what the term theory means in a scientific context:

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.



About her use of the term "theory" ― well, this guy says it best: About your use of the word "theory" - well, this guy says it best.

If "theory" really meant what she thinks it means, then music must not be proven to actually exist!
az58332.vo.msecnd.netwww.pedaltonepublishing.comwww.hatfieldmusic.comstore.drumbum.comi43.tower.comedwintchilds.comia600804.us.archive.orgthechurchpianist.com
 
2013-09-12 05:14:32 AM  

jesdynf: DerAppie: But let us look at Gravity.

Well, we can't really discuss gravity without discussing the other theory, you know.

I speak, of course, of Intelligent Direction, or ID for short, which is the theory that things fall to the Earth (or other large objects) because there is a Director guiding them so. Someone as learned as you should be aware that gravity is merely a theory, not a fact, and that other alternatives merit free and open discussion.


ID? Never heard of it. I do know about Intelligent Falling though. Is that the same? And how does it relate to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose Noodly appendages press down upon us to keep us from falling from the planet?
 
2013-09-12 08:37:45 AM  
This just in.......


Despite the most determined of efforts, science is NOT a religion and religion continues not to be a science.

A "methodology" that includes "blind belief" is faulted from the start. These two notions seem to contradict each other........
 
2013-09-12 08:38:05 AM  
Bethard also said  "I feel very firmly that 'creation science' based on Biblical principles should be incorporated into every Biology book that is up for adoption."

Establishment clause anyone?  Anyone?  Beuller?
 
2013-09-12 10:16:36 AM  

ciberido: [Awesomeness in this thread]


Cib, you are doing the lords wor-....  Err.. Um.  Technically I guess not.But you are doing a great job. I'm fighting a similar fight in my neck of the woods. Much appreciated to see others carrying the torch so to speak.
 
2013-09-12 10:17:34 AM  

ciberido: Snarcasm: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Exactly. Evolution is a science with no practical purpose. Peleo profs publish a paper every few years moving an extinct species around on the giant evolution wall chart.

As a science it applies perfectly to mechanical engineering.

/unless I need to worry about those bobcat kittens turning into 500 pound maneaters.

I would award you 10/10 if your name didn't give the game away.  Or rather, I probably would have bitten hard and not given you a score until much later.


Mostly serious.

The problem with the "evolving e coli" is typical of most evolution science. It is too similar to the cold fusion hoopla, you can not replicate it or prove it and it is most likely a contanination error.

Evolution is taught like philosophy. Teach Mendulson genetics, teach the scientific method.

Right now evolutionary theory is being taught as "philosophical proof of no divine being." Commentors wonder how people can even survive in the world without evolution. Can you tell me when you used it for a practical purpose?
 
2013-09-12 10:41:14 AM  

Snarcasm: Right now evolutionary theory is being taught as "philosophical proof of no divine being."


By whom? Where? When?

I think even being charitable, the most that could be said about teaching evolution regarding the existence of god is that the existence of the many forms of life is explainable without having to appeal to the existence of the supernatural. And, from my vantage point "We can explain this phenomenon without saying a god did it" is not in the same ball park as saying "We can explain this phenomenon as proving there is no god."

You either wildly misunderstand how scientific topics are taught, wildly misunderstand what philosophical proof means, or both. In any event, you should really stop talking and listen/read more because this topic is apparently outside your current understanding of the relevant material.
 
2013-09-12 10:58:46 AM  

Kome: Snarcasm: Right now evolutionary theory is being taught as "philosophical proof of no divine being."

By whom? Where? When?

I think even being charitable, the most that could be said about teaching evolution regarding the existence of god is that the existence of the many forms of life is explainable without having to appeal to the existence of the supernatural. And, from my vantage point "We can explain this phenomenon without saying a god did it" is not in the same ball park as saying "We can explain this phenomenon as proving there is no god."

You either wildly misunderstand how scientific topics are taught, wildly misunderstand what philosophical proof means, or both. In any event, you should really stop talking and listen/read more because this topic is apparently outside your current understanding of the relevant material.


Sadly, this seems to be becoming epidemic.......
 
2013-09-12 11:03:27 AM  

Guided_by_Voices: [controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200][controversy.wearscience.com image 200x200]


I never understood half of those. I mean, granted, a lot are good, and some very obscure, but does anyone honestly believe storks deliver babies, or that Paul Bunyan existed? For farks sake, the beetle/sun is a reference to ancient Egyptian myths.

Always struck me as a good idea they beat into the ground.
 
2013-09-12 11:19:17 AM  

Snarcasm: proof of no


lulz
 
2013-09-12 11:47:18 AM  

Snarcasm: Right now evolutionary theory is being taught as "philosophical proof of no divine being." Commentors wonder how people can even survive in the world without evolution. Can you tell me when you used it for a practical purpose?


Actually, it's being taught similar to mathematics. Do you invoke a variety of deities when you teach quadratic equations? Do you cite Allah or Jehovah or Vishnu when you teach multiplication?

Therein lies the rub: there are a LOT of faiths out there. Not all of them are even from the People of the Book. You want to teach comparative religion and origin tales across the globe, then do so in a Comparative Religion class. Science classes don't teach God, Allah, Jehovah, Amaterasu, Burkhan, Dohitt, El, Coyote, Olorun, Glooscap, Nun, Olelbis, Taikomol, Izanagi, Jumala, Lodur, Gitchi Manito, Unkulunkulu, Wisagatcak, Yoskeha or Yu-Huang, because oddly enough, not everyone subscribes to all these Creators.

You want to teach about a Creator? Then in order to NOT endorse one faith, you'd best crack open a BUNCH of books then, because Keri, Khnemu, and Ahsonutli, Brahama, Raven and Tepeu all have their subscribers as well as Jehovah/Allah/Yahweh....

It's not that science denies God, though in fact there are a lot of scientists who deny particular origins because there is no proof that the world congealed from Niflheim nor that the Universe and all was laid out in six days, but rather, science looks at what is, and lets the faithful tend to their own knitting on matters of spirituality. The problem lies, when folks of faith DEMAND that their faith be taught over everyone elses'. And that is really what this is about: folks who want their faith subsidized and taught, and screw anyone else who happens to NOT be of their faith. Which is sort of why we have that pesky freedom of religion. If your faith demands that you be an asshat, then that is on your head, not the rest of the community...
 
2013-09-12 11:58:59 AM  

hubiestubert: Actually, it's being taught similar to mathematics. Do you invoke a variety of deities when you teach quadratic equations? Do you cite Allah or Jehovah or Vishnu when you teach multiplication?


Pffft, everyone knows you can't do math or architecture without Thoth. He's god of those things, ya know.

/or Seshat
//or Odin
///or Apollo
////or the countless others I'm too lazy to list
 
2013-09-12 12:08:58 PM  

grumpfuff: I never understood half of those. I mean, granted, a lot are good, and some very obscure, but does anyone honestly believe storks deliver babies, or that Paul Bunyan existed? For farks sake, the beetle/sun is a reference to ancient Egyptian myths.

Always struck me as a good idea they beat into the ground.


They're trying to sell T-shirts, here. What are you, a communist?
 
2013-09-12 12:26:33 PM  
i.imgur.comi.imgur.com

Texas is going to have us teaching kids the following in a few years if we let them.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-12 12:38:40 PM  

Lando Lincoln: grumpfuff: I never understood half of those. I mean, granted, a lot are good, and some very obscure, but does anyone honestly believe storks deliver babies, or that Paul Bunyan existed? For farks sake, the beetle/sun is a reference to ancient Egyptian myths.

Always struck me as a good idea they beat into the ground.

They're trying to sell T-shirts, here. What are you, a communist?


Well, if you want to be technical...
 
2013-09-12 01:17:53 PM  
Snarcasm:
Mostly serious.

The problem with the "evolving e coli" is typical of most evolution science. It is too similar to the cold fusion hoopla, you can not replicate it or prove it and it is most likely a contanination error.



I could give you citations to a bunch of technical papers, but I suspect that doing so would be unproductive.  Instead, I'll give you this link to an article on Bacterial Speciation that is written so that an "intelligent layperson can follow it.  I can assure you that "contamination error" is not a relevant issue, and that the research has been replicated.  If you really want the citations to the professional literature, let me know.


Evolution is taught like philosophy. Teach Mendulson genetics, teach the scientific method.


"Mendelian."  (You somewhat undermine your credibility as a commentator on this subject here.  Word to the wise: it's a good idea, when you wish to critique a field of study, to have a very strong working knowledge of that field ahead of time.  If you show that you're not familiar with the basic premises, people tend to place less confidence in your conclusions than you might wish.)


Right now evolutionary theory is being taught as "philosophical proof of no divine being."


I teach evolutionary theory to my intro courses, and I can assure you that this is most definitely not the case.  Neither I nor any of my colleagues that I have spoken to about this issue consider evolution to be "proof of no divine being."

Evolution happens.  We have observed it happening.  Evolutionary theory is the set of principles, hypotheses, and mechanisms that help to explain how it happens.

(If you want to believe that "God did it," that's fine with me; it's not a scientific claim, but I don't care, lots of things aren't.  If you believe "God did it," evolutionary theory helps explainHOW He did it.)

Creationists often claim that evolutionary theory is used that way, but they are not correct.


Commentors wonder how people can even survive in the world without evolution. Can you tell me when you used it for a practical purpose?

Two cases of  E. coli infection were reported in today's Center Daily Times (State College, PA).  Mount Nitnay Medical Center staff were able to identify the precise strain of  E. coli and as a result, start effective treatment.  Had they treated the patients for some other strain, the treatments would have been less effective.  The reason they have to identify the particular strain of a bacterial infection is because bacteria evolve, so the treatments that were effective against older strains are not as effective against new ones.  So, technically speaking, the most recent time evolutionary theory was used for a practical purpose was today.

You have probably heard of illnesses developing "antibacterial resistance."  That is evolution in action, and the reason why medical experts have to keep coming up with new antibiotics is because the bacteria continue to evolve new forms of resistance.

Those may not seem like "practical applications" to you, but the patients who have been treated with effective antibiotics most likely have a different perspective.

Hope that helps.  Any more questions?  I'm sincerely happy to answer them.
 
2013-09-12 01:29:18 PM  

grumpfuff: hubiestubert: Actually, it's being taught similar to mathematics. Do you invoke a variety of deities when you teach quadratic equations? Do you cite Allah or Jehovah or Vishnu when you teach multiplication?

Pffft, everyone knows you can't do math or architecture without Thoth. He's god of those things, ya know.



You can do math without thoth.  But you can't do thpagetti without thoth, or it thuckth.   (In Thpanith, thoth ith called "thaltha" and it goeth good with tortilla chipth and cheethe.  Jutht don't eat too much of the thpithy thtuff or it hurth when you thit.)
 
2013-09-12 01:32:16 PM  

FloydA: grumpfuff: hubiestubert: Actually, it's being taught similar to mathematics. Do you invoke a variety of deities when you teach quadratic equations? Do you cite Allah or Jehovah or Vishnu when you teach multiplication?

Pffft, everyone knows you can't do math or architecture without Thoth. He's god of those things, ya know.


You can do math without thoth.  But you can't do thpagetti without thoth, or it thuckth.   (In Thpanith, thoth ith called "thaltha" and it goeth good with tortilla chipth and cheethe.  Jutht don't eat too much of the thpithy thtuff or it hurth when you thit.)



First I was like: *confused face*
Then I lol'd.

/gonna go ask the roommates if we can make thpagetti with vodak thoth for dinner
 
2013-09-12 01:40:13 PM  
grumpfuff:
First I was like: *confused face*
Then I lol'd.

/gonna go ask the roommates if we can make thpagetti with vodak thoth for dinner


:-D

Evolution threads get really dry and grumpy unless someone adds some humor.
 
2013-09-12 02:29:46 PM  
Thank you FloydA for the link, I will read it once I am off this tiny phone.

I had not found the replicated research on the bacterial speciation, so I just assumed.

Sorry about impuning Mendel. It took me three readings to notice that my mistake was your correction. I blame the phone or early onset dementia. You may choose. (Or big thumbs)

The main topic for discussion was the appropriate level of theory for high school science.
I stated that little theory should be discussed and that the main emphasis should be on developing scientific methods. My thoughts are that is more useful than memorization.

Personally I am more of a modified Lamarkian.

I have generally left out personal beliefs, but you seem a rational fellow a d will not hold it against me. :)
 
2013-09-12 02:49:43 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: [i.imgur.com image 300x362][i.imgur.com image 409x362]

Texas is going to have us teaching kids the following in a few years if we let them.

[i.imgur.com image 443x590]


Oh my....
 
2013-09-12 03:00:27 PM  

Snarcasm: Thank you FloydA for the link, I will read it once I am off this tiny phone.

I had not found the replicated research on the bacterial speciation, so I just assumed.

Sorry about impuning Mendel. It took me three readings to notice that my mistake was your correction. I blame the phone or early onset dementia. You may choose. (Or big thumbs)

The main topic for discussion was the appropriate level of theory for high school science.
I stated that little theory should be discussed and that the main emphasis should be on developing scientific methods. My thoughts are that is more useful than memorization.



I'm not at all a fan of rote memorization, but that is precisely why I feel it is so important to teach theory.  Theories are the "big ideas" that help students to make sense of the little details.  Without theory, memorization is all that's left, and in my experience, students only remember memorized details until the final exam, and then forget everything.  If we give them an explanatory framework upon which to place the details, they understand how all the "pieces of the puzzle" fit together, and that makes it easier for them to remember the details.  That's precisely what explanatory theory is.

Personally I am more of a modified Lamarkian.

I have generally left out personal beliefs, but you seem a rational fellow a d will not hold it against me. :)


"Modified Lamarckian" could mean any number of different things.  If you tell me what you mean by it, I'd be happy to discuss my opinion.  Lamarck was actually brilliant in a lot of ways.  He's mainly remembered for his mistakes, but even his mistakes make sense, given the neo-platonic philosophical assumptions of the 18th century.  His major mechanism turns out to be incorrect, his notion of the "topology" of phylogeny is completely wrong, and his understanding of variation was completely antithetical to the goal he set for himself, but his work was certainly a step up from Buffon's vague "hints" and Erasmus Darwin's quasi-erotic poetry.  And in some ways, some of Charles Darwin's ideas (e.g. on the mechanism of inheritance) could be considered "modified Lamarckism" too.

So I feel obligated to ask, what do you mean by "modified Lamarckian"?
 
2013-09-12 05:04:39 PM  
Snarcasm:

P.S. If this thread closes before you get a chance to reply, please feel free to contact me via my email (in profile) [my username (at) ultrafark (dot) com]
 
2013-09-12 05:56:14 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: [i.imgur.com image 300x362][i.imgur.com image 409x362]

Texas is going to have us teaching kids the following in a few years if we let them.

[i.imgur.com image 443x590]


Please tell me that that 2nd picture is a joke like the Jesus riding a dinosaur coloring book page.
 
2013-09-12 08:00:00 PM  

FloydA: grumpfuff:
First I was like: *confused face*
Then I lol'd.

/gonna go ask the roommates if we can make thpagetti with vodak thoth for dinner

:-D

Evolution threads get really dry and grumpy unless someone adds some humor.


I dunno. I find them mildly amusing usually. But then, I laugh at stupidity, so..yea.

/unfortunately they did not find it as funny as I did
//either way, I found my farky for you.
 
2013-09-12 09:55:16 PM  
grumpfuff:
//either way, I found my farky for you.

Is it "Igor"?  Please tell me it's Igor!  ;-)

Let me introduthe you to my dog, Thcrapth!  He'th been in the family for yearth.  Well...partth of him have.

i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-12 11:19:10 PM  

patrick767: The Irresponsible Captain: [i.imgur.com image 300x362][i.imgur.com image 409x362]

Texas is going to have us teaching kids the following in a few years if we let them.

[i.imgur.com image 443x590]

Please tell me that that 2nd picture is a joke like the Jesus riding a dinosaur coloring book page.


Sorry, it's a real thing from a school run by nutjobs. A friend of mine went to a school like that... and hasn't been a Christian in years.
 
2013-09-13 12:00:30 AM  

Snarcasm: ciberido: Snarcasm: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Exactly. Evolution is a science with no practical purpose. Peleo profs publish a paper every few years moving an extinct species around on the giant evolution wall chart.

As a science it applies perfectly to mechanical engineering.

/unless I need to worry about those bobcat kittens turning into 500 pound maneaters.

I would award you 10/10 if your name didn't give the game away.  Or rather, I probably would have bitten hard and not given you a score until much later.

Mostly serious.

The problem with the "evolving e coli" is typical of most evolution science. It is too similar to the cold fusion hoopla, you can not replicate it or prove it and it is most likely a contanination error.

Evolution is taught like philosophy. Teach Mendulson genetics, teach the scientific method.

Right now evolutionary theory is being taught as "philosophical proof of no divine being." Commentors wonder how people can even survive in the world without evolution. Can you tell me when you used it for a practical purpose?


I liked it better when I thought you were trolling.
 
2013-09-13 12:20:28 AM  

SharkaPult: ciberido: [Awesomeness in this thread]

Cib, you are doing the lords wor-....  Err.. Um.  Technically I guess not.But you are doing a great job. I'm fighting a similar fight in my neck of the woods. Much appreciated to see others carrying the torch so to speak.


The really odd part is I'm Christian.  Being pro-science, liberal, and Christian seems to be an odd combination these days.
 
Displayed 253 of 253 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report