Texas- voters to decide on alternative to Darwinism....
Discussion
Never ends in the US, this. The individual in charge of education for the State of Texas believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old, so voters will have the opportunity to change the curriculum for science to add "alternatives" to evolution.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123777413372910705...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123777413372910705...
The scientific method? does it exist ? discuss?
That's brilliant isn't it, only American religion could come up with that.
On the other hand at least they describe themselves as a 'Christian' nation.
Whereas in the UK we describe ourselves as a 'multi-cultural' nation which we are not.
That's brilliant isn't it, only American religion could come up with that.
On the other hand at least they describe themselves as a 'Christian' nation.
Whereas in the UK we describe ourselves as a 'multi-cultural' nation which we are not.
rhinochopig said:
10 Pence Short said:
I suppose living in such a young country that's grown so fast makes you question how anything can be more than 10,000 years old.
Says me sitting in a house older than pretty much every property in the entire US.
Bloody hell, your house is older than 25 years?Says me sitting in a house older than pretty much every property in the entire US.
10 Pence Short said:
rhinochopig said:
10 Pence Short said:
I suppose living in such a young country that's grown so fast makes you question how anything can be more than 10,000 years old.
Says me sitting in a house older than pretty much every property in the entire US.
Bloody hell, your house is older than 25 years?Says me sitting in a house older than pretty much every property in the entire US.
The Anti-Darwinists seem to be saying that because there are gaps in evolutionary theory that this means that Creationism should be taught...
BUT WHY?
Surely if there ARE Gaps - then Fairyism (aka Gnomist Theory) has just as much right to be taught. Why is Religion the default alternative to Darwin? It has no more evidence to substantiate it than does (say) 'The way of the Leprechaun'.
I just find it hilarious that religeous types spout on about flaws in Darwinian Theory...
BUT WHY?
Surely if there ARE Gaps - then Fairyism (aka Gnomist Theory) has just as much right to be taught. Why is Religion the default alternative to Darwin? It has no more evidence to substantiate it than does (say) 'The way of the Leprechaun'.
I just find it hilarious that religeous types spout on about flaws in Darwinian Theory...
So they're having a vote?
Democracy/consensus just means that if the majority are wrong about something, their view will prevail.
Right or wrong doesn't come into it, and it doesn't even matter either, it just means that fact can be ignored, officially.
Some folks are comfortable with that
Democracy/consensus just means that if the majority are wrong about something, their view will prevail.
Right or wrong doesn't come into it, and it doesn't even matter either, it just means that fact can be ignored, officially.
Some folks are comfortable with that
Depressing to think things haven't moved on much in the last 80 or 90 years.
When the Scopes monkey trial went to appeal the original ruling was only overturned because of a breach of court procedure, not because the appeal court saw sense and found in favour of the evolution argument.
When the Scopes monkey trial went to appeal the original ruling was only overturned because of a breach of court procedure, not because the appeal court saw sense and found in favour of the evolution argument.
Edited by Risotto on Monday 23 March 21:01
Sort of playing Devil's Advocate here, but isn't it actually unscientific to teach Darwinism as truth beyond question? It does afterall leave the unanswered question of how life came to be here in the first place, yet not on other planets in our solar system. Some element of design by some external body is one hypothesis as to how this came about, and it doesn't seem overly burdensome to ask biology teachers to mention this rather than saying "evolution is true and that's that."
It's also simply good practice scientifically speaking to question hypotheses and find out about alternatives ideas and what went before the current orthodoxy, however improbable they seem based on what we currently believe to be true.
Finally, put the two theories side by side and any right minded person can spot which is the credible explanation, and which isn't. As always, those who are right have nothing to fear from letting those who are wrong put their ideas in the public domain for all to see how wrong they are.
One other thing, the lefties hate this sort of thing, and while that doesn't make it right in itself, from a legislative point of view it probably buys an extra year into the next Democrat governor of Texas' term before they start doing lefty stuff like raising taxes. I wish Gordon Brown had inherited laws like this to work his way through before he'd got around to doing what he wants!
It's also simply good practice scientifically speaking to question hypotheses and find out about alternatives ideas and what went before the current orthodoxy, however improbable they seem based on what we currently believe to be true.
Finally, put the two theories side by side and any right minded person can spot which is the credible explanation, and which isn't. As always, those who are right have nothing to fear from letting those who are wrong put their ideas in the public domain for all to see how wrong they are.
One other thing, the lefties hate this sort of thing, and while that doesn't make it right in itself, from a legislative point of view it probably buys an extra year into the next Democrat governor of Texas' term before they start doing lefty stuff like raising taxes. I wish Gordon Brown had inherited laws like this to work his way through before he'd got around to doing what he wants!
wiki said:
The Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank that challenges evolution, cites a recent Zogby poll that found a strong majority of Americans supports letting teachers explore both "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution. Otherwise, students see only "cherry-picked evidence that really amounts to propaganda," said John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
The discovery institute.. they can call themselves what they will, but it's age old creationist tosh however they want to wrap it up in pseudo-science. I have seen some of their material, they are at best morons and at the worst bare faced liars.They rely on people having no understanding of the scientific method and core scientific principles. They often try to rubbish evolution by preaching false science that anyone with a high school understanding of biology / chemistry / physics etc could debunk.
If this goes through then this is a very sad day for science and for America.
This same Discovery Institute lodged false DMCA claims against YouTube users to have their videos which debunked creationist nonsense taken off. So.. for a supposed scientific establishment that wants free speech they seem very keen to shut down anyone who opposes their views.
To be honest, I don't think anyone in the discovery institute understands evolution even at a very very basic level.
The discovery institute has also had its
handed to it in court in the Dover School Trial, 2 people from the Discovery Institute Bill Buckingham and Alan Bonsell (sp?) both young earth creationists got the Dover School Board to teach intelligent design. "Mysteriously" creationist textbooks appeared in the schools, 16 of them to be exact. When in asked in court how they got there they pleased ignorance. They knew how the books got into the classrooms. Bill Buckingham asked his church goers to donate money, he gave them this money to Alan Bonsell via a cheque. Alan Bonsell gave the money to his father, who bought the creationist books. Yet in court, under oath, these Christians who want "the truth" about evolution to be taught stood and lied! Even the judge knew they were lieing. Judge Jones even recommended that purgery charges were brought against Buckingham and Bonsell for lying under oath. The judge then found correctly that ID was NOT science and unconstitutional to teach ID in science classes. He knew that to teach this stuff to children is doing them a great disservice.
Also 3 of the Discovery Institute fellows, who were down as expert witnesses all stepped down without giving any 'expert' testimony. So they are so sure of their beliefs that they would not stand up and defend it in court.
They are bare faced liars trying to manipulate the school system to have their lies spread to children who will not know any better.
On the upside, if the US stops teaching science (we don't need science, god did it) within about 100 years when the current 'intelligent' scientific generation die off and the next generation of creationist kids and their kids are brought up, they will be back in the dark ages
And we can all point and laugh and show just what happens when you let the intellectual black hole off religion run the show.As a side note, are the people who are voting experts in the field, are they experts in biology, DNA, genomes, chemistry, fossils, bacteria, evolution etc etc. If not then surely they should leave the teaching of this stuff to the experts who have actually spent time researching and gaining a level of understanding that the proponents of ID would never have! What next, do we allow "God Did It" as a valid answer for all exam answers? and just let the student decide what they want to believe in.
Edited by sstein on Monday 23 March 21:37
AJS- said:
Sort of playing Devil's Advocate here, but isn't it actually unscientific to teach Darwinism as truth beyond question? It does afterall leave the unanswered question of how life came to be here in the first place, yet not on other planets in our solar system. Some element of design by some external body is one hypothesis as to how this came about, and it doesn't seem overly burdensome to ask biology teachers to mention this rather than saying "evolution is true and that's that."
It's also simply good practice scientifically speaking to question hypotheses and find out about alternatives ideas and what went before the current orthodoxy, however improbable they seem based on what we currently believe to be true.
Finally, put the two theories side by side and any right minded person can spot which is the credible explanation, and which isn't. As always, those who are right have nothing to fear from letting those who are wrong put their ideas in the public domain for all to see how wrong they are.
One other thing, the lefties hate this sort of thing, and while that doesn't make it right in itself, from a legislative point of view it probably buys an extra year into the next Democrat governor of Texas' term before they start doing lefty stuff like raising taxes. I wish Gordon Brown had inherited laws like this to work his way through before he'd got around to doing what he wants!
Firstly Dawinism is nothing to do with how life got started. Separate field of study.It's also simply good practice scientifically speaking to question hypotheses and find out about alternatives ideas and what went before the current orthodoxy, however improbable they seem based on what we currently believe to be true.
Finally, put the two theories side by side and any right minded person can spot which is the credible explanation, and which isn't. As always, those who are right have nothing to fear from letting those who are wrong put their ideas in the public domain for all to see how wrong they are.
One other thing, the lefties hate this sort of thing, and while that doesn't make it right in itself, from a legislative point of view it probably buys an extra year into the next Democrat governor of Texas' term before they start doing lefty stuff like raising taxes. I wish Gordon Brown had inherited laws like this to work his way through before he'd got around to doing what he wants!
Secondly, if the design hypothesis had any shred of credibility or evidence then of course it would be worth investigating. So what are biology teachers supposed to do? Teach the best science and then lie about alternative interpretations (creation theory AKA design)?
Why not leave creation theory to the religion class?
AJS- said:
Sort of playing Devil's Advocate here, but isn't it actually unscientific to teach Darwinism as truth beyond question? It does afterall leave the unanswered question of how life came to be here in the first place, yet not on other planets in our solar system. Some element of design by some external body is one hypothesis as to how this came about, and it doesn't seem overly burdensome to ask biology teachers to mention this rather than saying "evolution is true and that's that."
Eurgh.Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. That would be abiogenesis.
Evolution explains the diversity of life via natural selection. Mainly reproduction with variation and environmental attrition.
To criticise evolution because it doesn't explain the origin of life, or gravity or why tomato sauce tastes better than brown sauce shows a lack of understanding of evolution.
The same lack of understanding that the ID proponents exploit to spread exactly this sort of disinformation.
-
Stuart
s2art said:
AJS- said:
Sort of playing Devil's Advocate here, but isn't it actually unscientific to teach Darwinism as truth beyond question? It does afterall leave the unanswered question of how life came to be here in the first place, yet not on other planets in our solar system. Some element of design by some external body is one hypothesis as to how this came about, and it doesn't seem overly burdensome to ask biology teachers to mention this rather than saying "evolution is true and that's that."
It's also simply good practice scientifically speaking to question hypotheses and find out about alternatives ideas and what went before the current orthodoxy, however improbable they seem based on what we currently believe to be true.
Finally, put the two theories side by side and any right minded person can spot which is the credible explanation, and which isn't. As always, those who are right have nothing to fear from letting those who are wrong put their ideas in the public domain for all to see how wrong they are.
One other thing, the lefties hate this sort of thing, and while that doesn't make it right in itself, from a legislative point of view it probably buys an extra year into the next Democrat governor of Texas' term before they start doing lefty stuff like raising taxes. I wish Gordon Brown had inherited laws like this to work his way through before he'd got around to doing what he wants!
Firstly Dawinism is nothing to do with how life got started. Separate field of study.It's also simply good practice scientifically speaking to question hypotheses and find out about alternatives ideas and what went before the current orthodoxy, however improbable they seem based on what we currently believe to be true.
Finally, put the two theories side by side and any right minded person can spot which is the credible explanation, and which isn't. As always, those who are right have nothing to fear from letting those who are wrong put their ideas in the public domain for all to see how wrong they are.
One other thing, the lefties hate this sort of thing, and while that doesn't make it right in itself, from a legislative point of view it probably buys an extra year into the next Democrat governor of Texas' term before they start doing lefty stuff like raising taxes. I wish Gordon Brown had inherited laws like this to work his way through before he'd got around to doing what he wants!
Secondly, if the design hypothesis had any shred of credibility or evidence then of course it would be worth investigating. So what are biology teachers supposed to do? Teach the best science and then lie about alternative interpretations (creation theory AKA design)?
Why not leave creation theory to the religion class?
Because Evolution is a hypothesis, and it makes sense to at least mention alternatives which have been investigated and at some point believed by some people. Same as learning about Marxism if you study Economics or facism if you study Politics.
Reading around the subject gives you a broader understanding of how it came to be, the context in which the theory was developed and the alternatives against which it was tested. I have no idea how this law is worded, and I doubt if there was any need for it (as I said, playing Devil's Advocate a bit) but it seems to me a good idea to at least mention alternatives when discussing a theory.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff