Rubes Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Kansas OK's evolution language My favorite part: In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena. Aw hell, why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Kansas OK's evolution language My favorite part: Aw hell, why not. 498209[/snapback] So at least we can all now acknowledge the Flying Spaghetti Monster (www.venganza.org). These people are just embarassing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Kansas OK's evolution language My favorite part: Aw hell, why not. 498209[/snapback] Coming up next: the Kansas State Legislature legislates pi equal to 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Coming up next: the Kansas State Legislature legislates pi equal to 3. 498321[/snapback] Americans trying to make pi equal 3 could happen. After all, it's easier and self-esteem is more important in schools these days than learning. Wouldn't it be neat to live in a country that valued science? Ah, screw it, it'll never happen..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Americans trying to make pi equal 3 could happen. After all, it's easier and self-esteem is more important in schools these days than learning. Wouldn't it be neat to live in a country that valued science? Ah, screw it, it'll never happen..... 498346[/snapback] Depends on what your definition of "science" is. It apparently varies from state to state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Depends on what your definition of "science" is. It apparently varies from state to state. 498403[/snapback] Exactly.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Look at the bright side, less competition for good "science jobs" for our kids. I think MIT should have a question on its admission application: "Are you now or have you ever been a public school student in the state of Kansas?" Their Senator is going to run for President. I'm scared. Hold me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 For any of you interested, here is a link to tons of info on the Dover Monkey Trial in Pa. It includes transcripts. Check out the ones where the Judge started asking questions of the School Board witnesses. These people are dedicated christians who first tried to get creationism taught and then switched to "Intelligent Design" which is basically the same thing. They are the ones who pushed for the Intelligent Design statement that led to the law suit. Anyway, they lied like crazy on the stand and the Judge finally had enough of it and started to ask questions himself. His questioning of a guy named Bonsell (day 18) and some woman named Geesey (day 17) was interesting to read. He nailed them both, on the record. Just look where it says "examination by the court". Dover Monkey Trial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 "Why do Christians take everything so personally with Christ ya know? It's like not only do you have to worship him you want everybody to. It's like I like lobster. Do I go around pushing lobster on people? Do I say you must like lobster? Eat lobster it's good it's good! It's not only where you live, you go to Africa you travel all over the world. Eat lobster, have some more lobster it's good. WE WANT YOU TO HAVE LOBSTER!!" -Larry David, Curb Your Enthusiasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Even I think this is stupid. But how much different is it from the left forcing THEIR agenda into the public square? Not much......they all suck. So in our public schools lets review... 1. Gym is dumbed down and no games where there is a "winner" and "loser" are played, so that nobody is "stigmatized." 2. No mention or acknowledgement of holidays that have a religious background. Not even Halloween. 3. This "science" thingy. 4. Teaching kids barely old enough to realize the opposite sex isnt "yucky" advanced sex education. Im sending my kids to private school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Even I think this is stupid. But how much different is it from the left forcing THEIR agenda into the public square? Not much......they all suck. So in our public schools lets review... 1. Gym is dumbed down and no games where there is a "winner" and "loser" are played, so that nobody is "stigmatized." 2. No mention or acknowledgement of holidays that have a religious background. Not even Halloween. 3. This "science" thingy. 4. Teaching kids barely old enough to realize the opposite sex isnt "yucky" advanced sex education. Im sending my kids to private school. 498519[/snapback] None of that is true in my school district which, by the way, is a city school district. I haven't surveyed the issue but I think the tendency here is to make unjustified extrapolations form anecdotal information. Thus, everytime some silly issue over a christmas song at school or some such, it gets tons of publicity and everyone concludes that it is a nationwide, every school, every day problem. All I can say for sure is that I haven't seen any of that as a problem in any public school district I have had anything to do with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Hamilton Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Im sending my kids to private school. 498519[/snapback] This is the smartest thing you've ever said. I don't trust the government to run itself. Why would I trust it to educate and care for my children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 None of that is true in my school district which, by the way, is a city school district. I haven't surveyed the issue but I think the tendency here is to make unjustified extrapolations form anecdotal information. Thus, everytime some silly issue over a christmas song at school or some such, it gets tons of publicity and everyone concludes that it is a nationwide, every school, every day problem. All I can say for sure is that I haven't seen any of that as a problem in any public school district I have had anything to do with. 498530[/snapback] Its a generalization......I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Clearly this whole thing is a bad remedy. I do find it interesting that the general gist of the articles is that: Christian groups are being 100% unreasonable They have no right to react to any perceived affront to their religion because the state has deemed their perception invalid. All Christians are whackos and should never have any say in public education because church and state must be separated Anyone who is purely science based (preferably someone that thinks evolution disproves God) is the ideal candidate to drive the curriculum because church and state must be separated at all levels. The thing that is overlooked is that the scientific community has zero willingness to examine themselves in an effort to improve. This is not a healthy approach. The fact that calling Christians whackoes is simple and easily accepted does not make it the right thing to do. As much as groups take advantage of Mickey's Christmas song type examples to generate publicity, others also assign the characteristics of a few Christain whackoes to all Christians. Neither is the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 The thing that is overlooked is that the scientific community has zero willingness to examine themselves in an effort to improve. 498595[/snapback] That's a pure, unadulterated, hopelessly ignorant steaming pile of horseshit. The most basic test of a theory is its ability to withstand repeated inspection. That's why ALL scientific papers are peer-reviewed. It's called the "scientific method". That's also why the Kansas board redefined "science"...because "intelligent design" has no merit under the scientific method, so can only stand as a "science" if science itself is redefined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Clearly this whole thing is a bad remedy. I do find it interesting that the general gist of the articles is that: Christian groups are being 100% unreasonable They have no right to be react to any perceived affront to their religion because the state has deemed their perception invalid. All Christians are whackos and should never have any say in public education because church and state must be separated Anyone who is purely science based (preferably someone that thinks evolution disproves God) is the ideal candidate to drive the curriculum because church and state must be separated at all levels. The thing that is overlooked is that the scientific community has zero willingness to examine themselves in an effort to improve. This is not a healthy approach. The fact that calling Christians whackoes is simple and easily accepted does not make it the right thing to do. As much as groups take advantage of Mickey's Christmas song type examples to generate publicity, others also assign the characteristics of a few Christain whackoes to all Christians. Neither is the right thing to do. 498595[/snapback] I am certain that in some circumstances christians are not treated fairly by some but the tone of your post that anti-chritstianity is some sort of real problem is, at best, overstated. This is a christian nation because the vast, vast majority of people in it are in fact, christians. There are churches everywhere and far more christians ready to dictate to scientists about science than there are scientists ready to dictate to christians about christianity. Scientists are very much willing to examine themselves. Its called peer review. As soon as one scientist proposes a theory, armies of other scientists try to disprove/substantiate the theory. The scientifific literature is replete with scientists, often proponents of rival theories, having lively debates fueled by ever more clever experiments. If you want to compare that to religion, well, what self criticism do you see among christians? Rival thought is practically heresey. There is no critical examination in fact, faith is pretty much the direct opposite of critical examination. Religion's greatest tenet is science's greatest sin. Faith is belief without proof, science is belief only with proof. Funny how you seem to think the ideal candidate for the secular world is an atheist. How then do you explain that the winners in the school board elections in Dover, the pro-evolutionists, plan to include intelligent design/creationism in an elective comparative religion class where it may be taught until the cows come home, in school? Many, many scientists believe in God and see no problem with evolution. In fact, that is the position of the Catholic Church. Are they a bunch of atheists too? I wonder what the reaction would be of christians if a school board in Dover decided that they should "teach the controversey" by requiring that atheism be taught in school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 That's a pure, unadulterated, hopelessly ignorant steaming pile of horseshit. The most basic test of a theory is its ability to withstand repeated inspection. That's why ALL scientific papers are peer-reviewed. It's called the "scientific method". That's also why the Kansas board redefined "science"...because "intelligent design" has no merit under the scientific method, so can only stand as a "science" if science itself is redefined. 498604[/snapback] Totally agree. No proclamations go through so much voluntary and self-review as in science. Every theory comes under close scrutiny by institutions and organizations world-wide. This contributes to a healthy debate unmuddled by religious or capitalist interests. Try that yardstick for the ID theory ! I am entirely disgusted by this news. Thinking back to the time when I was in school, throwing a little seed of doubt would have confused my understanding of the enormous effort that has gone into the theory of evolution. It is not as if Darwin one day problaimed he had a theory and the world bowed in submission. Archeologists and scientists alike have pieced together a 10000 piece puzzle which is albeit missing one piece. But don't try to explain that one piece with a theory that does not explain the other 9999 pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Scientists are very much willing to examine themselves. Its called peer review. As soon as one scientist proposes a theory, armies of other scientists try to disprove/substantiate the theory. The scientifific literature is replete with scientists, often proponents of rival theories, having lively debates fueled by ever more clever experiments. If you want to compare that to religion, well, what self criticism do you see among christians? Rival thought is practically heresey. There is no critical examination in fact, faith is pretty much the direct opposite of critical examination. Religion's greatest tenet is science's greatest sin. Faith is belief without proof, science is belief only with proof. 498620[/snapback] You beat me to it and worded it a lot better too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 That's a pure, unadulterated, hopelessly ignorant steaming pile of horseshit. The most basic test of a theory is its ability to withstand repeated inspection. That's why ALL scientific papers are peer-reviewed. It's called the "scientific method". That's also why the Kansas board redefined "science"...because "intelligent design" has no merit under the scientific method, so can only stand as a "science" if science itself is redefined. 498604[/snapback] Your misinterpratation of what I was saying seems to have led to some sort of meltdown. I'll refrain from calling you hopelessly ignorant because I probably could have used better wording. My statement was not about the theory of evolution at all. I have no problem with evolution or the science behind it. What I was saying is that the scientific community, or at least its purported advocates, are not employing scientific method to the results of their teaching. If I were teaching evolution and enough of my community objected, I would probably be angry at first and think of these people as ignorant jerky losers. But if my scientific side truly kicked in, I might at least examine why so many people were angry. I'm talking about applying scientific method to the teaching practice. If so many people are angry, enough to drive changes in laws, shouldn't I want to know why? Shouldn't I at least give some perfunctory attempt to explain that the science in question does not offer value judgements on God? Shouldn't I at least listen when they explain why they think it does? Shouldn't I repeatedly inspect my teaching methods? Or should I just call them a bunch of ignorant jerky losers and leave it at that? I have never seen any introspection evident in the teaching community on this topic. Maybe it is there but just doesn't show up in these articles. Or maybe they just go with the "ignorant jerky loser" strategy because it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 That's a pure, unadulterated, hopelessly ignorant steaming pile of horseshit. The most basic test of a theory is its ability to withstand repeated inspection. That's why ALL scientific papers are peer-reviewed. It's called the "scientific method". That's also why the Kansas board redefined "science"...because "intelligent design" has no merit under the scientific method, so can only stand as a "science" if science itself is redefined. 498604[/snapback] All they have to do is redefine science to include the unscientific. That makes as much sense as changing the definition of heterosexuality to include having sex with members of the same sex so that gay people could thenceforth be called "straight". Really, scientists relish nothing better than to overturn another scientists apple cart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts