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  
•       •       •

6802 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Sep 2013 at 4:25 PM (46 weeks 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 05:51:30 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.
 
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 »






Report