"Creation science ... should be incorporated into every Biology book" in Texas

[Doc Savage Fan]

The only moderator in DC is a conservative. The place has been open for the better part of a year, and I'm still not aware of anyone getting an actual infraction based on anything posted here that wouldn't earn an infraction anywhere else. So this "concern" has no foundation to it, yet people -- again nearly all of them right-wingers -- keep bringing it up anyway.

My concern has no foundation to it? Really? FYI, I received an infraction for the following "mild personal insult"...the only infraction I've ever received in 7 years of posting here. In my opinion, you should have got the infraction and should get one every time you insult people in this forum. Yeah...I know the score...it doesn't work like that here.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35299866&postcount=174

It's quite simple, actually: most of the right-wingers on AT are either uninterested in rational dialog, or incapable of it. So they prefer a place where it is both optional and rarely practiced.

I'm floored that you actually believe conservatives are uninterested in rational dialog or are incapable of it. Incapable of it? Really? Is there no end to your insults and condescension?

In my opinion, this kind of mentality speaks volumes about you. You said you're interested in a "peacable exchange of ideas" with conservatives. But it seems to me that you're more interested in denigrating and belittling those who don't share your perspective. I don't appreciate it, and I sure as hell don't like getting an infraction for saying so.

 

[Juddog]

My concern has no foundation to it? Really? FYI, I received an infraction for the following "mild personal insult"...the only infraction I've ever received in 7 years of posting here. In my opinion, you should have got the infraction and should get one every time you insult people in this forum. Yeah...I know the score...it doesn't work like that here.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35299866&postcount=174

Please explain how the post you linked is related to a debate? From what I can tell, someone made a post, and you responded with a direct attack; that's not what debating is about.

I'll post this from the pinned thread, this is the flow of a debate, and if you're unwilling to follow the flow, then there is no reason to post here:

 

[justoh]

It's uninterested OR incapable. Either part could be false and the statement still true, as long as at least a few of the forum's conservatives are either capable yet uninterested or interested but incapable (or both, of course, with an inclusive disjunction).

A conjunction would maybe have been better here, since in many cases this inability is the result of ignorance that results from a general lack of interest in the truth.

Speaking of condescension...

con·de·scend
verb
2.
to stoop or deign to do something: He would not condescend to misrepresent the facts.

These people (conservatives) are misleading children, something a lot more offensive and serious than being talked down to on a message board.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

My concern has no foundation to it? Really?

If you were actually trying to have a discussion here, no, no foundation to it. If you're just here to take pot shots at people without even trying to contribute to the discussion, as you did in your example, that's different. But then that would earn you an infraction in most places on this forum except for the P&N cesspool and OT.

At any rate, if you have a complaint about an infraction issued by an admin, you know where it belongs.

In my opinion, you should have got the infraction and should get one every time you insult people in this forum.

I should have gotten it for what? I didn't call anyone names. I compared being asked to "agree to disagree" on something factual like evolution to being asked to "agree to disagree" on whether or not the earth is flat. The two are directly analogous, whether you like it or not, and whether you find it "condescending" or not.

I'm floored that you actually believe conservatives are uninterested in rational dialog or are incapable of it. Incapable of it?

Go look through P&N, and you'll find quite a few who are apparently incapable. Others are uninterested.

You said you're interested in a "peacable exchange of ideas" with conservatives.

Well, I've tried in the past. Unfortunately it doesn't really go anywhere, because as I said, and with the exception of a handful of people, conservatives on AT are uninterested or incapable of rational dialog. Again, look through P&N, it's all over the place.

 

[zinfamous]

they tried this a couple of years ago and got voted out afterwards if my memory serves me.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...y-again-slips-into-texas-textbook-debate?lite

There is a documentary about those clowns called "The Revisionists."

rather terrifying group of ignorant mouth breathers over there, in charge of our nation's textbooks.

 

[silverpig]

Nothing is stopping them from buying any books, they just have to meet the state requirements. The costs of books from the UK or Canada, however, would more than likely be much higher. Plus, those students would have to learn the metric system, and that is much too hard for the average dumb America. A system based on 10s that can be easily converted? Way too complicated to remember silly latin prefixes. Much easier to remember how many ounces are in a quart and how many of those are in a gallon.

Science in the US is taught on the SI system of measurement (basically, metric).

They would have to get used to the extra 'u's flying around though.

 

[smackababy]

Science in the US is taught on the SI system of measurement (basically, metric).

They would have to get used to the extra 'u's flying around though.

I know, I was making a joke. However, there are laws in some states that forbid metric units of measure from being on labels.

 

[Silver Prime]

Cerpin taxt is retarded.

Needed a vacation? Enjoy your 2 weeks off. -Admin DrPizza

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is an interesting thread. While I wouldn't want creationism taught as science under any circumstance it seemed rather odd that the doomsday scenario was given so much emphasis. Right from the beginning it was 4 people out of 12 that were the problem, and one may argue that any are too many, in my world 8 saying one thing and 4 another means that the 8 win.

BTW, the inevitable happened and Texas is not going the creationist bio book and that's official.

 

[piasabird]

I think people can go to a church or their place of worship and study religion. However, I see nothing wrong with studying history with a religious perspective. Religion has and had a social impact in most countries for good, bad and otherwise. Sometimes you cant completely separated cultures and religion. Sure you can argue about what was the true motivation of why men did certain things in History. Often religion is just used as a justification to do evil or to control people. Mankind has often acted out their need for power and control based on religious or clultural beliefs and often religion is just an excuse for evil. Fighting against religion is also an excuse for evil. Look at communism, NAZI's, and the Japanese.

There is no shortage of Hate and evil in this world. It is men that do the hate and murdering. They do these things because they want power, money and everything else. Then there are other people that come along like St Patrick who just seem to want to do good. After Katrina a lot of help came from the churches. Often churches compassionate and humanitarian help comes from unpaid volunteers so they can stretch out the available funds and do a lot more good.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think people can go to a church or their place of worship and study religion. However, I see nothing wrong with studying history with a religious perspective. Religion has and had a social impact in most countries for good, bad and otherwise. Sometimes you cant completely separated cultures and religion. Sure you can argue about what was the true motivation of why men did certain things in History. Often religion is just used as a justification to do evil or to control people. Mankind has often acted out their need for power and control based on religious or clultural beliefs and often religion is just an excuse for evil. Fighting against religion is also an excuse for evil. Look at communism, NAZI's, and the Japanese.

There is no shortage of Hate and evil in this world. It is men that do the hate and murdering. They do these things because they want power, money and everything else. Then there are other people that come along like St Patrick who just seem to want to do good. After Katrina a lot of help came from the churches. Often churches compassionate and humanitarian help comes from unpaid volunteers so they can stretch out the available funds and do a lot more good.

One must be careful to differentiate teaching about religion and teaching religion itself. We're talking a science class in a public school and science is science. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the origins of the universe and how it may have come about without adhering strictly to mechanistic concepts, and God would certainly fit that scenario, but I wouldn't suggest it's science we'd be discussing.

 

[Tsavo]

Creation science should be taught in every school, but only under the "Sex Ed" category.

 

[Onceler]

the only problem I have with evolution is that everybody touts it as if it were Darwin's idea. It has been around at least since Aristotle. The only difference Darwin made was to say it was "natural selection" that caused the changes which I disagree with.

 

[zinfamous]

I think people can go to a church or their place of worship and study religion. However, I see nothing wrong with studying history with a religious perspective. Religion has and had a social impact in most countries for good, bad and otherwise. Sometimes you cant completely separated cultures and religion. Sure you can argue about what was the true motivation of why men did certain things in History. Often religion is just used as a justification to do evil or to control people. Mankind has often acted out their need for power and control based on religious or clultural beliefs and often religion is just an excuse for evil. Fighting against religion is also an excuse for evil. Look at communism, NAZI's, and the Japanese.

There is no shortage of Hate and evil in this world. It is men that do the hate and murdering. They do these things because they want power, money and everything else. Then there are other people that come along like St Patrick who just seem to want to do good. After Katrina a lot of help came from the churches. Often churches compassionate and humanitarian help comes from unpaid volunteers so they can stretch out the available funds and do a lot more good.

I have no problem with any of that, either.

This is about including creationism as an equally competing theory to evolution by natural selection in a science text book. That is a very, very different proposition.

Religion in history classes, as a component of history, in philosophy classes as one of many methods of seeking truth, in a religious studies class, absolutely no problem with that.


OK, before he gets excited about it and posts in here, I'm going to go ahead and cue this thread's nehalism:

"Just like you progs--trying to create two separate classes of people when it suits you. Keeping religion out of science is necessary, but keeping gays out of marriages is not!"

 

[zinfamous]

the only problem I have with evolution is that everybody touts it as if it were Darwin's idea. It has been around at least since Aristotle. The only difference Darwin made was to say it was "natural selection" that caused the changes which I disagree with.

Well, offer a competing theory to natural selection that shows how Darwin got it wrong. And he didn't "just say it"--it was nearly 4 decades of gathering and compiling staggering amounts of evidence to support his theory.

More than a century of biologists have failed to disprove him, but I'm sure random AT guy is going to do it. Good luck, sir.

 

[Retro Rob]

I have no problem with any of that, either.

This is about including creationism as an equally competing theory to evolution by natural selection in a science text book. That is a very, very different proposition.

Supernatural creation is a religious topic and should be discussed in Church, or Bible class.

I think what Fundamentalists really want is children to have the option to equally consider both sides of the argument (which I DO agree with), but that [supernatural creation] shouldn't be presented in school, only at home, only in Church.

God's existence hasn't been disproven, so why shouldn't children be allowed to honestly examine both arguments and make an informed decision?

 

[alzan]

Supernatural creation is a religious topic and should be discussed in Church, or Bible class.

I think what Fundamentalists really want is children to have the option to equally consider both sides of the argument (which I DO agree with), but that [supernatural creation] shouldn't be presented in school, only at home, only in Church.

God's existence hasn't been disproven, so why shouldn't children be allowed to honestly examine both arguments and make an informed decision?

True, it's not science and shouldn't be part of any science class or textbook.

You mean it hasn't been proven.

How would you suggest children (and adults) to examine whether or not some supernatural being the universe and all it contains? Excluding any of the myriad of religious texts, of course.

 

[Retro Rob]

True, it's not science and shouldn't be part of any science class or textbook.

You mean it hasn't been proven.

How would you suggest children (and adults) to examine whether or not some supernatural being the universe and all it contains? Excluding any of the myriad of religious texts, of course.

I don't know -- it's up to those who belong to said religion. I choose to teach from the Bible, examine what I see as evidence, etc.

For me, I cannot exclude the Bible no more than you can exclude telescopes to study the stars -- the suggestion is wrong-headed, as the Bible is the basis of my beliefs.

 

[moonbogg]

I don't see it happening. It would be a tragic national embarrassment, and we already have enough of those.

 

[zinfamous]

Supernatural creation is a religious topic and should be discussed in Church, or Bible class.

I think what Fundamentalists really want is children to have the option to equally consider both sides of the argument (which I DO agree with), but that [supernatural creation] shouldn't be presented in school, only at home, only in Church.

God's existence hasn't been disproven, so why shouldn't children be allowed to honestly examine both arguments and make an informed decision?

In a science class? The issue is confusing religion with theories dependent on the Scientific Method, and equating one discipline that confounds and does not require testable evidence, with disciplines that do.

These absolutely do not belong together in the same type of discussion.

 

[Retro Rob]

In a science class? The issue is confusing religion with theories dependent on the Scientific Method, and equating one discipline that confounds and does not require testable evidence, with disciplines that do.

These absolutely do not belong together in the same type of discussion.

I agree, that's why I said Supernatural creation belongs in church, or Bible class.

But...often times, the discussion simply comes up, so I think outlawing supernatural creation is a pipedream since religion, at times, employ the scientific method to confirm Bible accounts (like archaeology), for instance and some even use biology to argue for design.

The two can sometimes overlap, in my opinion.

 

[moonbogg]

I agree, that's why I said Supernatural creation belongs in church, or Bible class.

But...often times, the discussion simply comes up, so I think outlawing supernatural creation is a pipedream since religion, at times, employ the scientific method to confirm Bible accounts (like archaeology), for instance and some even use biology to argue for design.

The two can sometimes overlap, in my opinion.

Outlawing the discussion of supernatural creation won't happen of course, but people shouldn't be allowed to discuss it during economics class, math class, or science classes. It would be equally disruptive to the learning process if people discussed scuba diving during those classes or any other arbitrary topic not related to the class itself.

 

[Retro Rob]

Outlawing the discussion of supernatural creation won't happen of course, but people shouldn't be allowed to discuss it during economics class, math class, or science classes. It would be equally disruptive to the learning process if people discussed scuba diving during those classes or any other arbitrary topic not related to the class itself.

When discussing life and its origins, it simply comes up. I didn't say interrupt class to discuss it... or turn the class into a debate about God and Evolution...but kids should be encouraged to show, when appropriate, any science supporting their beliefs.

Saying something created something is completely scientific, as we create things ourselves.

 

[zinfamous]

When discussing life and its origins, it simply comes up. I didn't say interrupt class to discuss it... or turn the class into a debate about God and Evolution...but kids should be encouraged to show, when appropriate, any science supporting their beliefs.

Saying something created something is completely scientific, as we create things ourselves.

using archaeological data to support the existence of a very real city that was mentioned int he bible, which certainly alludes to many very real places and events, is not the same as science used to support religion.

You can look at the Bible as some type of historical text, one that should be interpreted very skeptically, obviously, but that is not the same as applying the scientific method to its spiritual proclamations. That holds absolutely no water.

Did Sodom and Gamorrah exist? Perhaps, it seems there is compelling evidence for ancient cities in those particular areas. Did God destroy these two cities for punishing their butt-sex loving ways via fireballs from the sky? That is not a scientific discussion.

how did these cities actually perish? This can be approached scientifically. There is absolutely no way to address divine intervention using the SM, so any attempt to discuss this in a scientific setting should be ignored. Save it for philosophy and religion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Saying something created something is completely scientific, as we create things ourselves.

No, actually, we don't. We reconfigure matter that already exists.