[stoney]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/law-allows-creationism-to-be-taught-in-tenn-public-schools/2012/04/11/gIQAAjqxAT_story.html

We can now teach creationism in public schools in Tennessee. Can someone please tell the SCOTUS that they are going to be wasting more time on this?

 

[jonKranked]

i'm starting to second guess why we chose not to let the south secede...

 

[kidwoo]

burly needs to log into his old account here pretty soon

 

[stoney]

i'm starting to second guess why we chose not to let the south secede...

This.

 

[stevew]

i'm starting to second guess why we chose not to let the south secede...

because you like black people.

 

[JohnE]

i'm starting to second guess why we chose not to let the south secede...

2 words. Waffle. House.

 

[Pesqueeb]

2 words. Waffle. House.

We have teh waffle house in CO. Happy to say I have only been in once. Also happy I decided to pass over promotional opportunities in Nashville several months back.

 

[MikeD]

Geezus.

It's just painful to look at the comments on that article.

Yeah, students who question science in class are "oppressed." Oppression which consists of being told "the theory of evolution doesn't say where life started, just describes our best idea of how life has progressed over time. And unlike you, we're fine being unsure about some fundamental things. But you're still going to have to be able to describe and discuss evolution, the only scientifically-accepted theory, to pass your next SCIENCE test, whether you agree with it, question it, or want to make sweet love to it."

The creationist-literalist nutsos read into science, draw a conclusion which science itself is glad to leave open, and find its acceptance of the unknown to be chilling and controversial.

 

[Pesqueeb]

 

[Pesqueeb]

Replace "Kansas" with "Tennessee".

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

 

[$tinkle]

so did you objectionable types learn about creationism through critical thinking & analysis, or by the mocking echo chamber that is the monkey?

what better place to judge creationism on its merits than in an environment that fosters learning?

 

[Pesqueeb]

so did you objectionable types learn about creationism through critical thinking & analysis, or by the mocking echo chamber that is the monkey?

what better place to judge creationism on its merits than in an environment that fosters learning?

I learned about creationism in Church. It's been a long road with probably many more miles to go, but I think I'm recovering pretty well.

And the idea of creationism is counter to "learning" IMHO.

 

[$tinkle]

i wonder if some context may be in order here before you types start flinging poo?

"Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary
school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any
public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any
teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand,
analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific
weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.
(e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not
be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination
for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination
for or against religion or non-religion."

 

[kidwoo]

so did you objectionable types learn about creationism through critical thinking & analysis,

Like you, I learned about creationism the same way I learned about other comparable scientific phenomena, like the easter bunny, fire breathing dragons and winnie the pooh. But thanks to luminaries like yourself we're only aloud to outgrow specific ones in that list while you sit there and pretend they're not of the same ilk.

The environment of critical thinking already reached the right conclusion centuries ago, oh wise one. That's the fvcking point.

Don't pretend like you don't know exactly what this is.

 

[jonKranked]

what i object to is the presentation of a "theory" based soley on the willful ignorance that comes from a direct interpretation of a 2,000 year old book written by drunks next to another theory, but this one with volumes upon volumes of directly observed evidence from a multitude of fields, and that the two are somehow presented as equals.

 

[$tinkle]

The environment of critical thinking already reached the right conclusion centuries ago, oh wise one. That's the fvcking point.

Don't pretend like you don't know exactly what this is.

whatsa matter? afraid of a little scrutiny?

i thought sunlight was the best disinfectant...

 

[Pesqueeb]

what i object to is the presentation of a "theory" based soley on the willful ignorance that comes from a direct interpretation of a 2,000 year old book written by drunks next to another theory, but this one with volumes upon volumes of directly observed evidence from a multitude of fields, and that the two are somehow presented as equals.

In a nutshell......

 

[MikeD]

so did you objectionable types learn about creationism through critical thinking & analysis, or by the mocking echo chamber that is the monkey?

what better place to judge creationism on its merits than in an environment that fosters learning?

No one's saying students can't judge it. But if you want an A on the SCIENCE test, you'd better understand what it says and be able to explain it, even if you don't agree with it.

Students can't get in front of a physics class and argue against the laws of thermodynamics, even if they think they're a crock of ****. That kind of misses the point of the class.

People seem to want their opposition to science to, in itself, be accepted as their work in class. If a teacher wants to let some kids have the platform to ask some questions that science doesn't claim to answer, and let the kids claim it invalidates science, that's the teacher's prerogative and totally positive in a small dose. But he also shouldn't have to spend time with that if he doesn't want to, or let those who oppose the content of his teaching let the class turn entirely into a debate about theory, instead of covering the substantive topics a biology class needs to cover.

If a science teacher wants to pretend that the scientific establishment is questioning evolution and push this approach in class, he should be fired because he's not teaching real science.

Having a discussion about the limits of the theory, including the fact that it is entirely agnostic about the beginnings of life, is well and good and proper. Discussing where various people think life may have begun is also great, including mentioning that some people take a theistic approach, and others non-theistic approach...but that science is only capable of taking on the non-theistic ones.

You can't use the scientific method to find God. Which seems entirely consistent with the notion of God's an infinite concept outside of full human understanding.

 

[jonKranked]

so did you objectionable types learn about creationism through critical thinking & analysis, or by the mocking echo chamber that is the monkey?

what better place to judge creationism on its merits than in an environment that fosters learning?

you haven't been to a public school recently, have you?

 

[$tinkle]

you haven't been to a public school recently, have you?

not within 1000 yards, no

 

[Pesqueeb]

No one's saying students can't judge it. But if you want an A on the SCIENCE test, you'd better understand what it says and be able to explain it, even if you don't agree with it.

Students can't get in front of a physics class and argue against the laws of thermodynamics, even if they think they're a crock of ****. That kind of misses the point of the class.

People seem to want their opposition to science to, in itself, be accepted as their work in class. If a teacher wants to let some kids have the platform to ask some questions that science doesn't claim to answer, and let the kids claim it invalidates science, that's the teacher's prerogative and totally positive in a small dose. But he also shouldn't have to spend time with that if he doesn't want to, or let those who oppose the content of his teaching let the class turn entirely into a debate about theory, instead of covering the substantive topics a biology class needs to cover.

If a science teacher wants to pretend that the scientific establishment is questioning evolution and push this approach in class, he should be fired because he's not teaching real science.

Having a discussion about the limits of the theory, including the fact that it is entirely agnostic about the beginnings of life, is well and good and proper. Discussing where various people think life may have begun is also great, including mentioning that some people take a theistic approach, and others non-theistic approach...but that science is only capable of taking on the non-theistic ones.

You can't use the scientific method to find God. Which seems entirely consistent with the notion of God's an infinite concept outside of full human understanding.

Exactly. Its a SCIENCE class. If you want to talk creationism and pretend like teh Bible is some kind of scholarly text, take it to Philosophy 101. And in all seriousness, in that philosophy class, you need to explain and PROVE to me why its not any more BS than Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Pastafarianism, etc. etc...... Religious nincompoopery has no place in a science class, at any age.

 

[MikeD]

whatsa matter? afraid of a little scrutiny?

i thought sunlight was the best disinfectant...

Scrutiny? No. But the creationists are arguing about where life started to argue against evolution...and the origins of life aren't what evolutionary theory tries to take on. So what I object to is this diversionary tactic on the part of the theist camp.

And creationists are often times arguing crackpot bull**** against available fossil evidence, and taking gaps in the evidence to be damning flaws rather than what science acknowledges they are...areas we have not yet filled in, but against which can try to make some inferences. And which inferences can be changed when evidence does arise or someone thinks of a more plausible, more testable idea.

 

[jonKranked]

at least they're not advocating bringing back teaching trepanning and bloodletting in med school as treatment for general ailments

 

[Pesqueeb]

“Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?”
― Carl Sagan

 

[jonKranked]

 

[$tinkle]

it's the very definition of irony you lot go out of your way to be willfully ignorant of the text of the law:

"shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."

reading comp 101

get some

 

[jonKranked]

funny you mention reading comprehension...

that phrase you quoted means that one can't be promoted over the other, that one can't be presented as more or less factual than the other; ie that they should be presented as equals. which is exactly the problem.

 

[$tinkle]

funny you mention reading comprehension...

that phrase you quoted means that one can't be promoted over the other, that one can't be presented as more or less factual than the other; ie that they should be presented as equals. which is exactly the problem.

no, it's agnostic wrt to equality

you damn dirty socialist ape

 

[Pesqueeb]

no, it's agnostic wrt to equality

you damn dirty socialist ape

Riiiiggghhhttttt........and absolutely no one will sh*t the bed when the creation story is held up on equal footing when it's taught out of the Qur'an.

 

[jonKranked]

Riiiiggghhhttttt........and absolutely no one will sh*t the bed when the creation story is held up on equal footing when it's taught out of the Qur'an.

i can't wait till some wise-ass kid trolls everyone by introducing FSM theory

 

[kidwoo]

whatsa matter? afraid of a little scrutiny?

i thought sunlight was the best disinfectant...

Yeah that's it


Let me guess......english major?


I thought we were done with derpers who'd never touched scientific principles, being expert judges on scientific principles once n8 got banned.

Guess not.

 

[kidwoo]

at least they're not advocating bringing back teaching trepanning and bloodletting in med school as treatment for general ailments

Look, if the bltch sinks, she's obviously not a witch. Floats? Well............evil at work.

You can't argue with science. Don't be afraid discover new things............from 0 AD.

 

[binary visions]

no, it's agnostic wrt to equality

It should not be "agnostic wrt to [sic] equality".

Why should it be okay to present stories and faith in a science class as equal to scientific theory? You know what science is, right?

As MikeD said, acknowledgement of some theology is not necessarily a bad thing, but a law stating that these stories may be presented as equivalent to science is not promoting some small, healthy discussion on the subject. You know exactly what this law is targeted at, and pretending otherwise is just trolling.

Science should be taught in science class, and signing a law like this into existence is simply an attempt to protect teachers that would rather teach religion than science, or protecting students that want to divert the scientific discussion.

Where is the law that protects phys. ed. teachers from being fired for promoting TV watching and fast food as a healthy lifestyle? What if a physics teacher wants to teach to, and test on, his own personal theory that thousands of tiny angels are actually pulling us towards the ground instead of gravity? What if a history teacher wants to teach holocaust denial? What if a health teacher wants to teach that nobody should ever go to doctors because they are all denizens of the underworld, infecting us with their diseases? What if a student wants to promote one of these fringe views?

Just because a person has a belief, doesn't mean it should be tolerated as public education. What should be taught in school is the most objective and thorough understanding we have of the world. If religious parents want to talk about creationism with their children, that is absolutely their right, but it does not belong in school.

 

[Westy]

The funny thing with evolution is that it isn't a scientific theory that people feel affects them on a regular basis, but it does challenges what they believe. Quantum physics was once considered as going against god's will (as many other theories) but once you can make cool **** from it and more importantly make money from the theory it no longer is a controversy. If creationists felt it could affect stock prices they would embrace it whole-hardheartedly. Of course genetic science supports the theory of evolution and is profitable and is widely accepted, personally I couldn't find one theory acceptable and the other not.

 

[$tinkle]

Why should it be okay to present stories and faith in a science class as equal to scientific theory? You know what science is, right?

you know what this means, right?
"shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."
if they are presented as equal, is this not promotion of doctrine? it certainly is! therefore, any attempt to promote creationism is not protected.

As MikeD said, acknowledgement of some theology is not necessarily a bad thing, but a law stating that these stories may be presented as equivalent to science is not promoting some small, healthy discussion on the subject. You know exactly what this law is targeted at, and pretending otherwise is just trolling.

"shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."
it's law, not troll-bait
have faith, brother

Science should be taught in science class, and signing a law like this into existence is simply an attempt to protect teachers that would rather teach religion than science, or protecting students that want to divert the scientific discussion.

there's certainly temptation for abuse; to deny this is folly

Where is the law that protects phys. ed. teachers from being fired for promoting TV watching and fast food as a healthy lifestyle? What if a physics teacher wants to teach to, and test on, his own personal theory that thousands of tiny angels are actually pulling us towards the ground instead of gravity? What if a history teacher wants to teach holocaust denial? What if a health teacher wants to teach that nobody should ever go to doctors because they are all denizens of the underworld, infecting us with their diseases? What if a student wants to promote one of these fringe views?

why stop there? let's go nuts & start teaching falsifiability.

oh, wait, we already do...

Just because a person has a belief, doesn't mean it should be tolerated as public education. What should be taught in school is the most objective and thorough understanding we have of the world. If religious parents want to talk about creationism with their children, that is absolutely their right, but it does not belong in school.

"shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."


don't fear the reaper
if a theory stands on its merits, it's for good reason.

if the god of abraham does truly exist in the exactly the way he is described in scripture, i think he can weather these 'godless arguments' just fine.

you would do well to be so faithful

 

[$tinkle]

The funny thing with evolution is that it isn't a scientific theory that people feel affects them on a regular basis, but it does challenges what they believe. Quantum physics was once considered as going against god's will (as many other theories) but once you can make cool **** from it and more importantly make money from the theory it no longer is a controversy. If creationists felt it could affect stock prices they would embrace it whole-hardheartedly. Of course genetic science supports the theory of evolution and is profitable and is widely accepted, personally I couldn't find one theory acceptable and the other not.

or, the specter of losing tax exempt status, or missing out on potential tithes from the faithful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Revelation_on_Priesthood

 

[jonKranked]

you know what this means, right?
"shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."
if they are presented as equal, is this not promotion of doctrine? it certainly is! therefore, any attempt to promote creationism is not protected.

promoting something means you placing something at a higher level of order, rank, preference, etc than something else. so you can't promote creationism (religious doctrine) over evolution (non-religious), not can you promote evolution over creationism. If you can't promote one idea over another, what's left when it comes to presenting them? Equality.

 

[Pesqueeb]

or, the specter of losing tax exempt status, or missing out on potential tithes from the faithful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Revelation_on_Priesthood

The Saints aren't any different than any other religion. Their political expediency is just more.......transparent.

I've said it before and I will say it again. When Romney is the GOP candidate, if the same sort of isht isn't tossed at him about Mormonism, the White Horse Prophesy, and the Churches history of insurrection against the United States, that was tossed against Blacky McIslam, it will be all of the proof any body should ever need that the backlash against Obama is absolutely all about race.

 

[jonKranked]

The Saints aren't any different than any other religion. Their political expediency is just more.......transparent.

I've said it before and I will say it again. When Romney is the GOP candidate, if the same sort of isht isn't tossed at him about Mormonism, the White Horse Prophesy, and the Churches history of insurrection against the United States, that was tossed against Blacky McIslam, it will be all of the proof any body should ever need that the backlash against Obama is absolutely all about race.

 

[$tinkle]

in home ec, was there not instruction on various ways for food preparation?
in civics, are not different cultures revealed?
in health class, are not different methods for birth control taught, including abstinence?

separate, but not equal