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 255
    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  
•       •       •

6808 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Sep 2013 at 4:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



255 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 05:32:14 PM  
Gotta love Fundamentalist Christians.  They get to legislate religious training into the public education system, and they get a ham-fisted attempt at religious indoctrination that just maybe might help their flagging church attendance.  And all at the low, low price of reducing the quality of education and a lesser quality of life of their states' children.

Yay religion!

/Because bearing false witness is OK if it gets you Jesus points
//and more pennies in the pie tins
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 255 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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