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.

(The Raw Story)   Christian groups sue to keep Kansas schools from teaching science as if it's true   (rawstory.com) divider line 247
    More: Fail, Kansas, Kansas schools, faith groups, orthodoxy, creationisms, standards, Pacific Justice Institute  
•       •       •

3624 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Sep 2013 at 12:55 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-27 01:54:49 PM

boue67: Can someone explain to me how these peoples are that different from the Talibans?


In fairness they are only like the early Taliban.  They need a few more years to really get the party started.
 
2013-09-27 01:54:54 PM

aaronx: And most of them will continue to home-school their kids anyway. Or send them to private Christian schools.

Oh, and starve the public schools of funding too. Forgot about that one.

How Jesus-y of them.


Donate billions to lobby for lower educational standards, deduct from your taxes and cut school funding.

Wonder aloud why kids are poorly-educated.
 
2013-09-27 01:55:29 PM

FloydA: haolegirl:

I thought they kinda sorta believed in evolution, that a little bit happened cause Noah couldn't fit two of EVERYTHING on the ark, and just brought a sampling and what we have now evolved from that? Or did I dream it?


Not all of them, but some creationists make that claim.  What's amazing about it is that, in order for the claim to make even a tiny bit of sense, they have to propose that evolution can happen a whole hell of a lot faster than even the most extreme PunkEek fan would propose, AND that nobody noticed at the time that a pair of generic deer gave birth to white tails, mule deer, elk, moose, red deer, and caribou all in one litter,  AND that this process of hyper-evolution stopped as soon as we started looking.
They make that argument in an effort to preserve the ark story.

Other creationists just sort of bypass the ark story and assume that God crammed the animals into that small space by magic, or the ark was bigger than it is described, as though it was a Tardis or something.


So which "flavor" are they wanting taught in PUBLIC schools? Or do we let the wackos fight it out amongst themselves, and get back to us with the winner. Also, will there be a way to opt out of the science classes for people of other/no religion?
 
2013-09-27 01:55:55 PM

boue67: Can someone explain to me how these peoples are that different from the Talibans?


Not logically.
 
2013-09-27 01:57:07 PM
Proudly ignorant ideologues... I do have to thank these folks for making me the happily areligious person I am today.

Teach your dogma in church, assholes... Where it belongs.
 
2013-09-27 01:57:36 PM

meat0918: Anecdote time: I was driving back from a job site in Northern California yesterday, and was flipping through the radio stations when I heard a preacher say "Take one of these tracts, wrap a rubber band around it a few times like it's a roll of money, and toss it to the homeless. That's one more soul saved"


If I saw someone toss a chick tract to a homeless guy, I'd have to assume that's at least two souls saved for Satan - the homeless guy who's going to hate Christianity for the rest of his life, and the Christian who thinks that counts as 'charity'.
 
2013-09-27 01:57:57 PM

boue67: Can someone explain to me how these peoples are that different from the Talibans?


Different magic sky wizard.
 
2013-09-27 01:58:20 PM

bborchar: R.A.Danny: The world needs ditch diggers too.

At least my kids will have less competition out there in the real world.


My kids will be glad to hire your kid.

:)
 
2013-09-27 01:58:54 PM
This question was already dealt with 45 years ago in Epperson v Arkansas.  A state cannot ban the teaching of evolution simply because it conflicts with one religion's creation myth.

"The state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them."
 
2013-09-27 01:59:44 PM
I drove thru Kansas yesterday coming back from Colorado, it was terrifying. Stupid, stupid people and stupid billboards all the way down i70. Turned north at Salina and felt a great sense of relief when i crossed the Welcome to Nebraska sign. The derp is strong in parts of Nebraska, but nothing compared to the lifeless blank eyes of most of the brainwashed masses there in Kansas.
 
2013-09-27 01:59:52 PM

Nurglitch: See, what you're not getting is that scientists and lay-people use the term "fact" differently, and that some people take the notion of fact as Fact, as in something universal and absolute. In other words, literally, you're talking about different things using the same words and although it looks like you're having a conversation (hence the appearance of disagreement), you're actually not talking about the same thing at all.



No, I get that.  The thing is, there is an observed "fact" of evolution in exactly that sense.  There is also a "theory of evolution" that explains the observed "fact of evolution."  It is perhaps unfortunate that the same term - "evolution" - is used to refer to both, but there's little I can do about that.

The "fact of evolution" is that offspring are different from their parents, and that the relative frequencies of variant alleles in the gene pool of a population change from one generation to the next.  That is as much a "fact" as anything in science can ever be.  It is as much a fact as the claim that brick houses are made of bricks.  It's something that, with the right equipment and instruction in how to use it, anyone can observe.

The "theory of evolution" is that natural selection, mutation, recombination, genetic drift, and a few other processes are the causes of the observed fact.  The theory cannot be "proven," since theories are ideas about cause and effect relationships, and as such are not physical "things" that can be observed.

The fact remains a fact however.


Secondly, if it was "patently and obviously false" then there wouldn't be a disagreement, because it would be patent and obvious that your theory isn't in conflict with their myth.


Creationism is patently and obviously false to anyone who actually looks at it with unbiased, objective eyes.  The fact that some people are delusional, brainwashed, or just to plain dumb to realize that they are wrong does not make their beliefs any less false.  Anyone who interprets Genesis as a literal, accurate, historical account is either delusional, dishonest, ignorant, or stupid.

(People who interpret genesis metaphorically don't tend to have any problems accepting evolution.  They are not creationists.)


Something science communicators (and most 'experts') often fail to do is to assess their audience, and adapt their language appropriately to make things clear to their audiences as well as to themselves.


Yes, this is a challenge.  It's one that I have to consider when I'm actually doing work, rather than just messing around on Fark.


What creationists want is their myths promulgated by the state, which I believe is illegal by your country's constitution.


That's correct.  Ultimately, what they want is a theocracy, in which their personal interpretations of scripture carry the force of law and it is illegal to believe anything else.  The repeated attempts to push their religion into the science classrooms are simply one battle in their culture war.  The fact that they lose the battle every time doesn't seem to dissuade them; they sincerely believe they can do the same thing they did before, the same way, and still expect a different outcome.
 
2013-09-27 02:00:44 PM
So the argument is that schools should not "promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from government that favors one religious view over another."

By that logic, anything that contradicts any religious dogma (Christian or otherwise) should be removed from the Kansas science standards. The only acceptable material would be that which does not contradict any religion at all and agrees with empirical observation. I imagine the intersection on that Venn diagram is pretty small...
 
2013-09-27 02:00:46 PM

mrshowrules: boue67: Can someone explain to me how these peoples are that different from the Talibans?

In fairness they are only like the early Taliban.  They need a few more years to really get the party started.


So much this.

/lets not give them a few more years
 
2013-09-27 02:00:50 PM

Klom Dark: I drove thru Kansas yesterday coming back from Colorado, it was terrifying. Stupid, stupid people and stupid billboards all the way down i70. Turned north at Salina and felt a great sense of relief when i crossed the Welcome to Nebraska sign. The derp is strong in parts of Nebraska, but nothing compared to the lifeless blank eyes of most of the brainwashed masses there in Kansas.


If you can make it to Lawrence, you are fine.
 
2013-09-27 02:01:01 PM

give me doughnuts: vudukungfu: Schools are like polling places. And religion is like a penis. It's OK to have one. It's OK to be proud of it.It is NOT OK to wave it around in public.


...or to ram it down childrens' throats.


LMAO.  +100 to this.
 
2013-09-27 02:02:14 PM
How strong is your faith if science creates a hostile environment? More importantly, how great is your God if you are incapable of using the brain he gave you?
 
2013-09-27 02:04:30 PM
"The suit alleges that the new (science) standards will 'promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiff'"

I think I see your problem..
 
2013-09-27 02:06:15 PM

Klom Dark: I drove thru Kansas yesterday coming back from Colorado, it was terrifying. Stupid, stupid people and stupid billboards all the way down i70. Turned north at Salina and felt a great sense of relief when i crossed the Welcome to Nebraska sign. The derp is strong in parts of Nebraska, but nothing compared to the lifeless blank eyes of most of the brainwashed masses there in Kansas.


I'll never understand the logic behind those billboards.  Do they actually think they're changing anyone's minds?  Wouldn't that money be better spent helping the hungry, the poor, the sick?
 
2013-09-27 02:07:21 PM

Lord_Baull: How strong is your faith if science creates a hostile environment? More importantly, how great is your God if you are incapable of using the brain he gave you?


These people don't have faith. They have terrified, terrorized obsession. Blind faith is the weakest sort, and while it sounds challenging to believe in something against what is observed, that's only because to do so is farking stupid. True faith is faith that can still stand in the face of changing knowledge, and if your faith can't work in line with that knowledge or adapt to be of allegorical and spiritual value while working with that knowledge, it's not faith. It's delusion.
 
2013-09-27 02:09:31 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of it.

And also really non-self-aware: FTFA:

"The statement went on to say that "teaching the materialistic/atheistic ideas to primary school children whose minds are susceptible to blindly accepting them as true" is unconstitutional and dangerous, and therefore the new science standards must be stopped. "

And yet apparently teaching primary school children about religion is not dangerous at all.


Is there any chance of me getting this huge serving of double standards with a side of pasta?
 
2013-09-27 02:09:52 PM
"It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.
 
2013-09-27 02:10:14 PM
Faith groups are up in arms that their beliefs are not being given more credence in science classes.


Man, these people are never gonna go away, are they? The only hope is that their offspring are exposed to enough logic to counteract their parents' backwardass worldview.
 
2013-09-27 02:10:41 PM
Wow.  Even for creationists this is one of the most retarded lawsuits ever attempted.  I guess the whole tactic of "Creationism is a legitimate SCIENCE!" hasn't worked out too well and now they are just coming right out and calling it religion.  And therefore must be taught to all students because....something.

Freedom of religion - I don't think you understand what that really means.
 
2013-09-27 02:11:55 PM
Satanic Hamster: I'll never understand the logic behind those billboards.  Do they actually think they're changing anyone's minds?  Wouldn't that money be better spent helping the hungry, the poor, the sick?

No - they are not ads for becoming religious - they are self-perpetuating reminders that the reader IS religious. They are meant to illicit a "yes, that is right" response only.
 
2013-09-27 02:11:57 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Klom Dark: I drove thru Kansas yesterday coming back from Colorado, it was terrifying. Stupid, stupid people and stupid billboards all the way down i70. Turned north at Salina and felt a great sense of relief when i crossed the Welcome to Nebraska sign. The derp is strong in parts of Nebraska, but nothing compared to the lifeless blank eyes of most of the brainwashed masses there in Kansas.

I'll never understand the logic behind those billboards.  Do they actually think they're changing anyone's minds?  Wouldn't that money be better spent helping the hungry, the poor, the sick?


See: History of the World Part I, the Roman Senate.
 
2013-09-27 02:12:45 PM
the new standards will "promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from government that favors one religious view over another."

CORE said that the science standards would "will have the effect of causing Kansas public schools to establish and endorse a non-theistic religious worldview,"


Arguing that science and religion are incompatible isn't going to win you any arguments. I hope you enjoy getting your suits tossed into the dustbin of history.
 
2013-09-27 02:12:49 PM
haolegirl:

So which "flavor" are they wanting taught in PUBLIC schools? Or do we let the wackos fight it out amongst themselves, and get back to us with the winner.

Each one of them sincerely believes that when they "make America a Christian country," it will be their own flavor of Christianity that is holding the reins.  They haven't thought that far ahead, to be honest.  If they had actually bothered to really think about the question, they would realize that the biggest religion in the US is the Catholic Church, with nearly five times as many members as the second largest church (SBC).  (In fact, there are nearly as many Catholics in the US as there are all other Christian denominations combined.) And the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution.

If they actually stopped to think logically about it, the creationists would work very hard to maintain the separation of church and state, because if any church takes over the state, it's not going to be theirs.   (Of course if they actually had any skill at thinking logically, they would not be creationists.)

 Also, will there be a way to opt out of the science classes for people of other/no religion?

The creationists are trying to force their religion into science classrooms because they can't force non-believers to attend church. They want their religion to be mandatory, so no, they would not allow any sort of "opt out."
 
2013-09-27 02:14:00 PM

Lord_Baull: How strong is your faith if science creates a hostile environment? More importantly, how great is your God if you are incapable of using the brain he gave you?


In the New Creationist and Prosperity Gospel translation Jesus clearly states "Whoever has eyes to see, or ears to hear - amputate those organs.  They're just there for Satan to fark with you."
 
2013-09-27 02:14:35 PM
And, in the evangelical sanctioned history class...

i.imgbox.com
 
2013-09-27 02:15:30 PM

Close2TheEdge: Wow.  Even for creationists this is one of the most retarded lawsuits ever attempted.  I guess the whole tactic of "Creationism is a legitimate SCIENCE!" hasn't worked out too well and now they are just coming right out and calling it religion.  And therefore must be taught to all students because....something.

Freedom of religion - I don't think you understand what that really means.


actually it seems like their new tactic is to claim science is a religion.
 
2013-09-27 02:15:31 PM
Welcome to Brownbackistan, infidels!
 
2013-09-27 02:15:42 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: TwistedIvory: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Next up: renaming Liberal

That town has always confused me. It's my mother's hometown and I've been there more times than I can count (I grew up in eastern KS). I remember at a young age asking my mom, "But WHY is it called 'Liberal?'"

Having been there myself, I'm going to guess "comic relief"


Was there recently, both parents and both sets of grandparents are from there--and it's changed a lot.  I think the name has something to do with all the free water the town provided in the early 20th century when you could take deranged citizens  (like these people) out back and shoot them.  Good times.
 
2013-09-27 02:16:00 PM

SkinnyHead: "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.


Auditioning for the role of Bevets, are we?
 
2013-09-27 02:16:58 PM

boue67: Can someone explain to me how these peoples are that different from the Talibans?



Not as many schoolgirls shot in the head, yet.
 
2013-09-27 02:16:59 PM
"(I)t's an egregious violation of the rights of Americans to subject students - as young as five - to an authoritative figure such as a teacher who essentially tells them that their faith is wrong," he said.

Oh fark off, shiat for brains. My kid is in 5th grade right now and hasn't learned one thing about evolution or the age of the earth yet.  For goodness sakes, they don't even start teaching science as a formal subject until 3rd or 4th grade and they're learning things like the parts of a cell and 'ecosystem', herbivores vs. carnivores and shiat like that.
 
2013-09-27 02:17:31 PM
Oh look, elchip's bored again. Cookie Clicker is a better way to taste time than SkinnyHead.
 
2013-09-27 02:18:19 PM
it's friday, drank most of my lunch - will wax poetic

what is frightening is also this - at some point, most children have the chance to travel - you parents know this.  Senior trip, national sports, etc.  one here was to Washington, another to Mexico - ours went.
these kids may never get that, even if they are enrolled because at some point travel leads to exposure and apparently that is bad - anti-science won't mesh well with a trip to the national air and space museum. how will you explain disney world in florida without science? okay - "magic kingdom" - bad example. still...

as posted above? an insular religious group that denies science and then, perhaps, avoids travel, IS a cult of sorts.

sigh
 
2013-09-27 02:18:31 PM

EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).


STFU and GTFO. When we want your opinion on stiffened phalluses, we'll call you.
 
2013-09-27 02:18:36 PM
The judge should invite each plantiff to discard their man-made cell phones, walk home, and not go to a hospital if their family ever becomes ill.
 
2013-09-27 02:20:59 PM
chicken farkin sod farmers.
 
2013-09-27 02:21:08 PM

EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).


Cf. Asimov essay.

Further, "science" and "scientific facts" are slightly different things. The term "Science" variously refers to a philosophical discipline, some anthropological practices, or the body of information resulting - "scientific facts" being only the last.

mgshamster: Theories are explanations of facts, they are not just "stronger facts."


That, too. Ob:

img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.
 
2013-09-27 02:21:33 PM

monoski: dr_blasto: EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).

They're testable and repeatable. Sometimes the test gets better and what was once promoted to theory gets washed away based on new evidence. Sometimes it is just new discovery that better explains a process.

That's the thing, though. Testable and repeatable. Wilingness to change accepted theories based on new evidence; these are how we get science. Religion just 'is' because they believe it. Of the two choices here, one is more "true" than the other.

You mean to tell me that whole walking on water thing is not repeatable?


Of course it is repeatable. I get to do it every winter.
 
2013-09-27 02:22:46 PM

give me doughnuts: vudukungfu: Schools are like polling places. And religion is like a penis. It's OK to have one. It's OK to be proud of it.It is NOT OK to wave it around in public.

...or to ram it down childrens' throats.


Hey now, let's not be hasty.
 
2013-09-27 02:24:20 PM

harleyquinnical: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of it.

And also really non-self-aware: FTFA:

"The statement went on to say that "teaching the materialistic/atheistic ideas to primary school children whose minds are susceptible to blindly accepting them as true" is unconstitutional and dangerous, and therefore the new science standards must be stopped. "

And yet apparently teaching primary school children about religion is not dangerous at all.

Is there any chance of me getting this huge serving of double standards with a side of pasta?


Of course, it's also paired with the White Whine.
 
2013-09-27 02:27:05 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: SkinnyHead: "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.

Auditioning for the role of Bevets, are we?


I wonder what point is he trying to prove by quoting a political activist that has been dead for over 200 years.
 
2013-09-27 02:27:30 PM

SkinnyHead: "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.


Social validation involves resisting the message by bringing to mind important others who share one's original attitude (Festinger, 1950, 1954, 1957; Festinger, Gerard, Hymovitch, Kelley, & Raven, 1952). Source derogation involves insulting the source, dismissing his or her expertise or trustworthiness, or otherwise rejecting his or her validity (Buller, 1986; Festinger, 1957; Festinger & Maccoby, 1964; Wright, 1975). Social validation and source derogation are responses that do not require message scrutiny, although both are likely to be coded as unfavorable thoughts in the general cognitive response approach. - (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5)


parasol: No - they are not ads for becoming religious - they are self-perpetuating reminders that the reader IS religious. They are meant to illicit a "yes, that is right" response only.


Attitude bolstering, in contrast, involves support arguing- that is, generating thoughts that are consistent with and supportive of one's original attitude without directly refuting message arguments (Abelson, 1959; Cameron & Jacks, 1999; Festinger, 1957; McGuire, 1964; Sherman & Gorkin, 1980). - ibid


Pants full of macaroni!!: Auditioning for the role of Bevets, are we?


There's some slight stylistic differences; they're actually contemporaries.
 
2013-09-27 02:27:35 PM

clownyclownzomby: MaudlinMutantMollusk: TwistedIvory: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Next up: renaming Liberal

That town has always confused me. It's my mother's hometown and I've been there more times than I can count (I grew up in eastern KS). I remember at a young age asking my mom, "But WHY is it called 'Liberal?'"

Having been there myself, I'm going to guess "comic relief"

Was there recently, both parents and both sets of grandparents are from there--and it's changed a lot.  I think the name has something to do with all the free water the town provided in the early 20th century when you could take deranged citizens  (like these people) out back and shoot them.  Good times.


I've heard that Kansas actually used to be pretty liberal, back before it was all large corporate-owned farms.
 
2013-09-27 02:28:08 PM
Another group, the Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE, Inc.) filed suit on Sep. 26 demanding that the new curricula not be instituted

Adding this to my too long list of groups who name themselves one thing to entice rubes and practice the exact opposite.

It's a long list, rivaling the LOPAGOPATA. (can't recall the exact acronym).
 
2013-09-27 02:28:28 PM
Tell ya What Kansas.


We are going to have a contest.

Several in Fact.

Contest 1: Build a house
You may only use one of the following: Science, or Faith.

Contest 2: Grow Crops resistant to drought.
You may only use one of the following: Science, or Faith.

Contest 3: Build an Airplane
You may only use one of the following: Science. or Faith.

Contest 4: You have all been given skin cancer. You must treat and cure it.
You may only use on of the following: Science, or Faith.
 
2013-09-27 02:29:40 PM
I'd like a repeatable experiment where food for two of every animal (48000 lbs of food and 4000 gallons of water just for two elephants) fit on a boat 300 cubits long. Then we can do an experiment where 2 koalas and pandas carry enough eucalyptus and bamboo for a 3000 mile journey to the ark and back.
 
Displayed 50 of 247 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report