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  
•       •       •

6780 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Sep 2013 at 4:25 PM (31 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 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 11:14:17 PM
hubiestubert: words

Yeah, I'm familiar with the Wedge Document.  Hell, I've even printed it out and given it to various fundie family members, with a post-it note that had the reminder on it about bearing false witness.  Nobody ever remembers receiving it.
 
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.
 
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