Missouri bill redefines science, gives equal time to intelligent design

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

cthulhuspawn82:

Quaxar:

cthulhuspawn82:
These debates always seemed pointless and dumb to me. My particular origins(e.g. creationism or evolution) aren't going to change how I live my life, or the decisions I make. If one idea being true doesn't cause you to behave differently than another being true, then you might as well believe whichever one you want because its a moot argument anyway.

I'd say it makes a huge difference if you base the decision of vaccinations or throwing out antibiotics like M&Ms on your belief that life is unchanging instead of adapting.

That is a different issue entirely. Vaccinations and antibiotics are necessary and vital for our health and survival. That holds true whether mankind was made by an invisible creator or evolved from primates. Your view on creationism vs evolution should have no impact on your use, or non-use, of vaccinations and anti-biotics.

It shouldn't, and yet it does for some people because they learned that natural selection is a myth so there is no problem with overusing antibiotics. And I do realize even rational YECs accept a certain grade of adaption since not even they can deny that.

But anyway, this isn't remotely about whether one of them is the absolute truth, it's just yet another attempt of fundamentalist Christians to force their biased and grossly misinformed faith-based dogmas into scientific subjects, even though I don't reckon a lot of them would be alright with me going to their sermon and presenting geological and physical counter-evidence alongside their pastor's lecture of the story of Noah. Or the Rigveda for that matter.

And also, as a biologist I take personal offense to that bill.

cthulhuspawn82:

Quaxar:

cthulhuspawn82:
These debates always seemed pointless and dumb to me. My particular origins(e.g. creationism or evolution) aren't going to change how I live my life, or the decisions I make. If one idea being true doesn't cause you to behave differently than another being true, then you might as well believe whichever one you want because its a moot argument anyway.

I'd say it makes a huge difference if you base the decision of vaccinations or throwing out antibiotics like M&Ms on your belief that life is unchanging instead of adapting.

That is a different issue entirely. Vaccinations and antibiotics are necessary and vital for our health and survival. That holds true whether mankind was made by an invisible creator or evolved from primates. Your view on creationism vs evolution should have no impact on your use, or non-use, of vaccinations and anti-biotics.

I understand where your argument comes from. The stereotypical Christians who refuses medicine because he thinks its God's will that he get sick and that god will cure him if he wants him cured. I think those people represent a vast minority. For the vast majority, belief in god or evolution has no impact on how they feel about medical treatment. This relates back to my original statement about either fact being true should not cause a change in most peoples life.

image

Couldn't resist, the setup was just too perfect.

Seanchaidh:
It's just Missouri. And it probably won't even pass, apparently.

As I said in the post, I consider this to be more a symptom than - in itself - that big a problem. It fits a pattern of trying to regulate science, insert religion and pseudoscience into education and deny reality where it's ideologically uncomfortable.
And I honestly think we see effects of such things. It's a bit like the hen and the egg: People are much more Literalist in their beliefs, much more adverse to science in the USA, so they elect politicians that try to legislate and regulate along these lines, which in turn creates new people who distrust science and believe in pseudoscience as a valid alternative and reality as a question of public opinion rather than objective facts. And thus round and round it goes. This is just a small part of a bigger picture.

Skeleon:
Bye bye, USA's former leadership in science, research and innovation.
If you try to train a generation of scientifically illiterate theocrats, you might just get a generation of scientifically illiterate theocrats.

Lol? We've lost that position decades ago. At minimal since 2001 and the No Child Left Behind Act. And possibly before that.

Skeleon:
And, no, it's obviously not just because of this. When even extremely basal science like evolution is so in contention, this is just another symptom, another nail in the coffin. It's about a general rejection of science because it and reality are perceived to be ideological in nature. It's been going on for way longer than this and while people do fight back, it's frightening how often these kinds of things aren't just proposed but actually get through. But then it tends to affect particular sections of the USA more than others, so I'd assume the results will also similarly be distributed.

Thank god for gerrymandered government positions. It's not that the majority of us wants this sort of shit, we really don't. Too bad the majority doesn't dictate what happens in this country, ever.

Skeleon:
Now, who will take their place? Europe? China? India? I sure hope it's us, but then we have plenty of liberal politicians trying to cut education (especially free access to higher education like universities). I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Captcha: fairy godmother
Hm. Seems relevant.

Probably the Dutch countries or South Korea.

Damien Granz:
Thank god for gerrymandered government positions. It's not that the majority of us wants this sort of shit, we really don't. Too bad the majority doesn't dictate what happens in this country, ever.

Gerrymandering is a big issue (we know that the Democrats would've won the House but for it), but while I'll agree with you on the USA overall, my point was that some places are particularly (and yes, I daresay by a majority) electing such people and reinforcing the circle.

What are "the Dutch countries"?

Skeleon:

Damien Granz:
Thank god for gerrymandered government positions. It's not that the majority of us wants this sort of shit, we really don't. Too bad the majority doesn't dictate what happens in this country, ever.

Gerrymandering is a big issue (we know that the Democrats would've won the House but for it), but while I'll agree with you on the USA overall, my point was that some places are particularly (and yes, I daresay by a majority) electing such people and reinforcing the circle.

What are "the Dutch countries"?

If you're willing to look narrowly enough yeah, you're right. America's a big place though. I wasn't meaning you'd find nobody. But I won't make it out like they don't exist either, so your point is fair enough.

As for Dutch.. I'm meaning like the Netherlands and what not. It's a kingdom like how the UK is a collection of countries. I'll be frank, and make a remark about American ignorance if you want, but I don't really know all of the holdings that entails or how they see each other. If referring to them as Dutch is offensive then I apologize.

That said, one could probably can throw in the Swedish and Finland too for places with good education. This is off top of my head so if I'm wrong, sorry. Somebody could wikipedia it.

Nice to see that, so long as it weaves in Aryan superiority the Christian god somewhere, stuff like phrenology can be taught once more.

No longer will one need to merely read about the strange theories of old, finally they'll come alive in the Science Methodology Live Museum. Previously known as the Missouri educational system.

Damien Granz:
Probably the Dutch countries or South Korea.

I'd love to agree with you on that one, and some places like the 'brainport' Eindhoven or TNO have been doing good work, but we basically just axed our university education system this year, and have been doing that bit by bit the past few years. Starting 1 september there's no more studying grants, and everything needs to be borrowed, so you'll rack up at least € 30.000 in debt to get any sort of degree, while housing, even student housing and such have become prohibitively expensive.

Call me a sceptic, but I'm thinking jobs that take a long time to study and don't pay well (like innovation research or teaching) are going to be pretty much extinct as a result.

The Dutch scientific and innovating successes were built on everybody having acces to higher education, that being largely government-paid so universities aren't under pressure to deliver quantity over quality, and students being able to choose fairly non-profit fields without fear of ending up destitute, but like I said we've destroyed that system over the 2006-2014 time period.

We may ride the wave a little on the current generation of academics, but can expect stagnation.

On the other hand, we still have our non-hierarchic direct culture as a bonus. Research, especially which requires thinking out of the box, just goes slower in conformist cultures.

cthulhuspawn82:
These debates always seemed pointless and dumb to me. My particular origins(e.g. creationism or evolution) aren't going to change how I live my life, or the decisions I make. If one idea being true doesn't cause you to behave differently than another being true, then you might as well believe whichever one you want because its a moot argument anyway.

This isn't about what people choose to believe, but about what gets taught in schools. Even if you don't consider this particular topic important, consider the implications of using legislature to altar what facts kids are allowed to be taught. Imagine if this was a legislation to redefine the term "segregation" so that it implied people deliberately separating themselves because they like it that way, and not an enforcement of racism? What if the Trail of Tears was required to be described as a voluntary relocation? Or if a teacher discussing the Japanese interment camps of WWII had to make it sound like there were strong reasons to suspect those people of being spies?

Of course, I always assume that when these debates bring up evolution they specifically mean the theory in which man evolved from some non-human species. The simple fact of creatures evolving to adapt to their environment is an absolute fact and should have a large focus in the classroom.

The theory of evolution is about all creatures changing over time, humans and non-humans alike.

For the vast majority, belief in god or evolution has no impact on how they feel about medical treatment.

That medical treatment is based on evolution, though. Which means that whether the vast majority cares about evolution or not, it's an important subject and we need people who are educated in the subject.

Welcome to Missouri, where we think legitimate rape cannot result in a child because a woman's body has ways to stop that, and creationism is a scientific theory to be taught not alongside evolution, but instead of. I thank my parents for giving me this big 80lb stack of books called "encyclopedias" when I was 5. Those books helped shape me into the proud, logic-minded atheist that I am today. Too bad I can't say the same about them.

BrassButtons:

cthulhuspawn82:
These debates always seemed pointless and dumb to me. My particular origins(e.g. creationism or evolution) aren't going to change how I live my life, or the decisions I make. If one idea being true doesn't cause you to behave differently than another being true, then you might as well believe whichever one you want because its a moot argument anyway.

This isn't about what people choose to believe, but about what gets taught in schools. Even if you don't consider this particular topic important, consider the implications of using legislature to altar what facts kids are allowed to be taught. Imagine if this was a legislation to redefine the term "segregation" so that it implied people deliberately separating themselves because they like it that way, and not an enforcement of racism? What if the Trail of Tears was required to be described as a voluntary relocation? Or if a teacher discussing the Japanese interment camps of WWII had to make it sound like there were strong reasons to suspect those people of being spies?

Of course, I always assume that when these debates bring up evolution they specifically mean the theory in which man evolved from some non-human species. The simple fact of creatures evolving to adapt to their environment is an absolute fact and should have a large focus in the classroom.

The theory of evolution is about all creatures changing over time, humans and non-humans alike.

For the vast majority, belief in god or evolution has no impact on how they feel about medical treatment.

That medical treatment is based on evolution, though. Which means that whether the vast majority cares about evolution or not, it's an important subject and we need people who are educated in the subject.

I may have gotten my terms mixed up but I know the concepts. When Christians talk about not believing in evolution, what I think they should say is that they don't believe that humans evolved from a non human species. Evolution is a vast science, encompassing many facts. The statement "Apes evolved into men" is just a simple statement. When people argue over evolution they are really just arguing over that one single statement. Everyone, Christian and Atheist alike, believes in evolution, evolutionary science, the theory of evolution, and etc. Just not everyone believes in the ONE statement.

So these debates have nothing to do with evolution. The debate is on the origin of man. I know both sides of this are confused. Christians are obviously confused, but those on the other side are certainly confused as well. Someone already posted the comic where a doctor asks the Christian if he wants the antibiotic for the old version of his disease since Christians don't believe in evolution. That comic shows a lack of understanding about what people are discussing. What does a disease evolving have to do with the origin of man? Why does not believing that man evolved apes mean that you don't believe that diseases evolve.

Honestly, we need to come up with a new term for the idea of humans evolving from some non human species. And we need to give this term a name than sounds nothing like and cannot be associated with evolution. That why this confusion can end once and for all.

cthulhuspawn82:
I may have gotten my terms mixed up but I know the concepts. When Christians talk about not believing in evolution, what I think they should say is that they don't believe that humans evolved from a non human species. Evolution is a vast science, encompassing many facts. The statement "Apes evolved into men" is just a simple statement. When people argue over evolution they are really just arguing over that one single statement. Everyone, Christian and Atheist alike, believes in evolution, evolutionary science, the theory of evolution, and etc. Just not everyone believes in the ONE statement.

No, plenty of people - especially YECs - believe all animals were created by their god in their current form (or at least in forms within their particular "kinds", whatever that's supposed to be). Plus, humans being animals that evolved from common ancestors with apes is basic biology as well.

So these debates have nothing to do with evolution. The debate is on the origin of man.

You're acting as though the two had nothing to do with each other. What do you base that on?

Someone already posted the comic where a doctor asks the Christian if he wants the antibiotic for the old version of his disease since Christians don't believe in evolution.

Don't conflate Christian with Creationist, it's insulting to a lot of Christians. The comic certainly didn't do that, you just did that. Read it again carefully if you don't believe me.

Honestly, we need to come up with a new term for the idea of humans evolving from some non human species. And we need to give this term a name than sounds nothing like and cannot be associated with evolution. That why this confusion can end once and for all.

Why? That is evolution. Speciation is a major part of evolution. Making up a term for something that we already have a term for wouldn't end confusion, it'd just add on top of it.

What does a disease evolving have to do with the origin of man?

Because it's the same basic mechanisms at work, that's why.

cthulhuspawn82:

I may have gotten my terms mixed up but I know the concepts. When Christians talk about not believing in evolution, what I think they should say is that they don't believe that humans evolved from a non human species. Evolution is a vast science, encompassing many facts. The statement "Apes evolved into men" is just a simple statement. When people argue over evolution they are really just arguing over that one single statement. Everyone, Christian and Atheist alike, believes in evolution, evolutionary science, the theory of evolution, and etc. Just not everyone believes in the ONE statement.

No, there are people who reject pretty much all of evolution, or who only accept evolution within "kinds" (a term they steadfastly refuse to define in any meaningful way).

So these debates have nothing to do with evolution. The debate is on the origin of man.

Which means the debates are about evolution.

Honestly, we need to come up with a new term for the idea of humans evolving from some non human species. And we need to give this term a name than sounds nothing like and cannot be associated with evolution. That why this confusion can end once and for all.

I have a friend who has nearly died multiple times doing work to gather data used in studying evolution (and he's been on jobs where other people DID die). Frankly if some creationists can't be bothered to even learn what the term "evolution" means then fuck them. They can just continue being wrong.

BrassButtons:

cthulhuspawn82:
These debates always seemed pointless and dumb to me. My particular origins(e.g. creationism or evolution) aren't going to change how I live my life, or the decisions I make. If one idea being true doesn't cause you to behave differently than another being true, then you might as well believe whichever one you want because its a moot argument anyway.

This isn't about what people choose to believe, but about what gets taught in schools. Even if you don't consider this particular topic important, consider the implications of using legislature to altar what facts kids are allowed to be taught. Imagine if this was a legislation to redefine the term "segregation" so that it implied people deliberately separating themselves because they like it that way, and not an enforcement of racism? What if the Trail of Tears was required to be described as a voluntary relocation? Or if a teacher discussing the Japanese interment camps of WWII had to make it sound like there were strong reasons to suspect those people of being spies?

Of course, I always assume that when these debates bring up evolution they specifically mean the theory in which man evolved from some non-human species. The simple fact of creatures evolving to adapt to their environment is an absolute fact and should have a large focus in the classroom.

The theory of evolution is about all creatures changing over time, humans and non-humans alike.

For the vast majority, belief in god or evolution has no impact on how they feel about medical treatment.

That medical treatment is based on evolution, though. Which means that whether the vast majority cares about evolution or not, it's an important subject and we need people who are educated in the subject.

the forced internment in ww2 of the japanese was horrific and in hindsight was vicious and wrong. however in ww1 there were german and irish sabotuers who did sabotage factories and even infected ships carrying horses to europe for the alies so i can see why at the time they were worried the same thing would happen.

on topic. wow i cant get my head around people planing to make this law. one thing this is going to do is put any student from there at a serious disadvantage the moment they move to university

wombat_of_war:

the forced internment in ww2 of the japanese was horrific and in hindsight was vicious and wrong. however in ww1 there were german and irish sabotuers who did sabotage factories and even infected ships carrying horses to europe for the alies so i can see why at the time they were worried the same thing would happen.

Oh, I definitely understand the motivation behind the camps. However that motivation does not hold up under basic scrutiny. When thousands of people have all immigrated from the same country, being an immigrant from that country can't be used as evidence for anything other than the person being an immigrant. Anything more than that requires additional evidence.

I hate drawing comparisons to the youth groups political groups run (as the first few examples are always the nazi hitler youth) but this is exactly that. It's conditioning these people to be more sympathetic to the cause of these politicians and their goals. It's plain populism.

Even if Catholicism holds that abortion is forbidden and you shouldn't use birth control, it doesn't mean that I will impose my beliefs on a woman I don't know. Is she a Catholic? If she isn't, then I don't mind. If she is, then she's a bad Catholic. It's her choice to sin. It's her choice to be excommunicated.

Most interesting of all, the general feeling of Catholics in regards to this isn't as strict as the church's main view. Most will say that it's the woman's choice or that, in order to save the life of a woman, the life of the fetus can be ended. If you come into a path where you have to choose between letting the woman die with the child or saving the woman for the child's life, then I would save the woman's life, even if it means the death of the fetus.

That's my two cents.

cthulhuspawn82:
These debates always seemed pointless and dumb to me. My particular origins(e.g. creationism or evolution) aren't going to change how I live my life, or the decisions I make. If one idea being true doesn't cause you to behave differently than another being true, then you might as well believe whichever one you want because its a moot argument anyway.

Of course, I always assume that when these debates bring up evolution they specifically mean the theory in which man evolved from some non-human species. The simple fact of creatures evolving to adapt to their environment is an absolute fact and should have a large focus in the classroom. Much larger then creationism and the theory of evolution combined. Those last two should just be a footnote.

I understand where youre coming from but such logic means like 90% of schooling is totally irrelivant and can be replaced with downright lies.

For example i was taught the cause of the first world war was the assassination of the arch duke franz ferdinand which led to a series of domino like effects. But ive never used that. And never will. So why dont we save everyones time and just teach that Satan did it. Ive also never been to the moon. And yet im taught its made of rock. Why not replace that with cheese and explain the moon appeared because it pleased thor rather than the real explanation of how it came about. Its just a foot note after all. Evolution, macro evolution, unperpins ALL of genetics and taxonomy and biology. Its just ridiculous to expect thinking able biologists to be able to function properly while doing such extreme mental gymnastics to incorporate total fabrications into their world view.

Do you not see how you can totally fuck up a persons worldview by inserting weird fantasy in place of fact for random segments, even if they never use those segments? Im never going to go to serbia but in geography wouldnt you agree its important to teach me REAL facts rather than everyone who lives their is bright green? Schools shouldnt be allowed to spread lies. Downright total lies. Even if MOST children never use it in future it doesnt mean its ok to replace it with whatever the fuck whacky thing you want.

No no no this is terrible news! Horrible news! THIS IS CRAZY! Someone please kill me now.

BiscuitTrouser:

cthulhuspawn82:
These debates always seemed pointless and dumb to me. My particular origins(e.g. creationism or evolution) aren't going to change how I live my life, or the decisions I make. If one idea being true doesn't cause you to behave differently than another being true, then you might as well believe whichever one you want because its a moot argument anyway.

Of course, I always assume that when these debates bring up evolution they specifically mean the theory in which man evolved from some non-human species. The simple fact of creatures evolving to adapt to their environment is an absolute fact and should have a large focus in the classroom. Much larger then creationism and the theory of evolution combined. Those last two should just be a footnote.

I understand where youre coming from but such logic means like 90% of schooling is totally irrelivant and can be replaced with downright lies.

For example i was taught the cause of the first world war was the assassination of the arch duke franz ferdinand which led to a series of domino like effects. But ive never used that. And never will. So why dont we save everyones time and just teach that Satan did it. Ive also never been to the moon. And yet im taught its made of rock. Why not replace that with cheese and explain the moon appeared because it pleased thor rather than the real explanation of how it came about. Its just a foot note after all. Evolution, macro evolution, unperpins ALL of genetics and taxonomy and biology. Its just ridiculous to expect thinking able biologists to be able to function properly while doing such extreme mental gymnastics to incorporate total fabrications into their world view.

Do you not see how you can totally fuck up a persons worldview by inserting weird fantasy in place of fact for random segments, even if they never use those segments? Im never going to go to serbia but in geography wouldnt you agree its important to teach me REAL facts rather than everyone who lives their is bright green? Schools shouldnt be allowed to spread lies. Downright total lies. Even if MOST children never use it in future it doesnt mean its ok to replace it with whatever the fuck whacky thing you want.

I would never expect creation to be taught in the classroom as true, I simply expected them to add a footnote saying "This is what many people believe". But perhaps that doesn't belong in a Biology classroom

It would probably be better for these schools to add a Theology class that studies the beliefs of various religions with an emphasis on Christianity. This way, Christians can get there beliefs in school textbooks and the class would be relevant as it would fall under sociology rather than biology. I also wouldn't be upset at them trying to make it a core requirement since sociology, including the examining of religious beliefs in a society, is a very important field of study.

I think its a good compromise to say we will allow creationism into the classroom, just not the Biology classroom.

cthulhuspawn82:

I would never expect creation to be taught in the classroom as true, I simply expected them to add a footnote saying "This is what many people believe". But perhaps that doesn't belong in a Biology classroom

It would probably be better for these schools to add a Theology class that studies the beliefs of various religions with an emphasis on Christianity. This way, Christians can get there beliefs in school textbooks and the class would be relevant as it would fall under sociology rather than biology. I also wouldn't be upset at them trying to make it a core requirement since sociology, including the examining of religious beliefs in a society, is a very important field of study.

I think its a good compromise to say we will allow creationism into the classroom, just not the Biology classroom.

We already have those classes though, their just not good enough for Creationists. My school had classes called Religious & Moral Education (RME) that taught about the myths, rituals and belief systems of all religions on an equal standing; and that's the problem.

Christian Creationism (the kind you are most likely to see being proposed in these places) is true[1], you can't teach a fact alongside the myths of those other religions that are 'obviously' wrong.

By moving Creationism where it belongs (into theology) it becomes nothing more than a story, equal to any other creation myth and that hurts it's credibility as a 'fact'. What class teaches facts? Science, so that's why there is a push to get creationism seen as a science, it lends credibility to the idea of creationism being true.

Apart from the anti-theists nobody has any problem with Christian dogma being talked about in schools, as long as it doesn't only teach Christianity (and excludes other world religions) or teach that these things are facts rather than beliefs.

[1] according to them, obviously

cthulhuspawn82:

I would never expect creation to be taught in the classroom as true, I simply expected them to add a footnote saying "This is what many people believe". But perhaps that doesn't belong in a Biology classroom

Of course it doesn't belong in a biology classroom. Biology class is for teaching biology, not mythology.

It would probably be better for these schools to add a Theology class that studies the beliefs of various religions with an emphasis on Christianity.

If the emphasis is on Christianity then the class should be named 'Bible Studies'. It's more honest that way.

I also wouldn't be upset at them trying to make it a core requirement since sociology, including the examining of religious beliefs in a society, is a very important field of study.

So long as the class is actually "theology" and not "Bible study" I'd agree with that. Understanding world religions is important for understanding much of history.

I think its a good compromise to say we will allow creationism into the classroom, just not the Biology classroom.

Why should we be aiming for a compromise? And if we're going to compromise with Creationists, should we also compromise with Flat Earthers, No Planers, Moon Landing Deniars, and Holocaust Deniars?

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked