Texas may start teaching against Evolution in high schools...

[Dimmauk]

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...77d55cc875.jpg

From the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

Number 6 is hilarious

[Devek]

In slightly related news, the Oklahoma state legislature is investigating Richard Dawkins' recent speech at the University of Oklahoma:

Ya.. lol.

Nothing is going to happen.. the article is a little misleading(notice it cites the huffington post). All they are doing is harassing the university by making them fill out a bunch of paperwork.

While it is an attack on free speech, it isn't anything to get worked up over.

If you want to call the rep behind it all, his name is Todd Thomsen and his phone number is (405) 557-7336 He represents counties like Hughes and Pontotoc county lol. Those places are backwards, even for Oklahoma. He isn't going anywhere, but he isn't going to make a difference either.

[BerenTebogo]

eh

That's a summary. Have the actual passages? If I'm wrong idc but I was pretty sure of this.

[thatwasnifty]

Ya.. lol.

Nothing is going to happen.. the article is a little misleading(notice it cites the huffington post). All they are doing is harassing the university by making them fill out a bunch of paperwork.

While it is an attack on free speech, it isn't anything to get worked up over.

If you want to call the rep behind it all, his name is Todd Thomsen and his phone number is (405) 557-7336 He represents counties like Hughes and Pontotoc county lol. Those places are backwards, even for Oklahoma. He isn't going anywhere, but he isn't going to make a difference either.

Oh, I know it won't go anywhere. The university did nothing wrong. It's an attempt to bully OU and intimidate them into not inviting speakers that the government doesn't like. That doesn't mean that this should be ignored, though, because it's just another example of religious fundamentalism getting in the way of free speech and intellectual honesty. The OK legislature deserves the derision and ridicule it's bringing upon itself.

(And yeah, I know it's the Huffington Post, but OK did try to bar Dawkins from entering the state and then tried to officially condemn him: Thoughts from Kansas : Oklahoma hates Richard Dawkins)

[Mirinika]

If public schools did have a class dedicated to teaching different religious beliefs around the world, the christians and muslims would flip out about it. Only one way can be the right way lol. Jews would probably be the only people cool about it.

They implemented a class like that in french canadia ( which is not THAT much religious) and yes, some people are indeed flipping out. Too bad for them~The muslims here will flip out about anything so that's not saying much.

[Khajit]

The answer to where Cain found his wife.
Cain no Tsuma

[Eratosthenes]

If public schools did have a class dedicated to teaching different religious beliefs around the world, the christians and muslims would flip out about it. Only one way can be the right way lol. Jews would probably be the only people cool about it.

My high school offered a history class called World Religions which took an objective look at the five major religions and there was nobody flipping out about it.

Western Civilization class also talked about the influences of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

It is possible to present religious topics in public schools without proselytizing, however, this is not the goal of creationists.

[Tristam]

On the other hand you have the anti-religion people (NOT all people that subscribe to evolution) claiming that the reason it's a theory, and not a law, is because theories are better than laws.

Please explain your flawless theory statement then, perhaps I misinterpreted it.

An a scientific theory does in fact have more explanatory power than a law, it's not a better or worse thing, it simply encompasses more, there's nothing to argue there.

edit: more to the point, noone teaches evolution as a law, there's no law of evolution. How would you teach evolution as a law? I just don't get what you're saying.

[Kaeko]

One of the earliest quotes I learned in Biology was this:

"nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"

I think the more Biology one learns the more true this becomes. There are certain aspects of your own human body that are far from optimal - for instance, it is extremely 'dumb' to put food and air down the same tube - it obviously can lead to choking. It's hardly intelligent to do it that way.

Another funny case is an enzyme in your body called RNA Polymerase (it makes RNA from your DNA and eventually leads to making proteins). Think of it as a biological machine. It fails to work 99% of the time - it's like batting 0.010 in baseball - it does the first 10 of 500+ in the DNA sequence they fails - it then takes about 5-10 extra enzymes to consume energy to save it and restart. Repeat this an average of 100x and RNA Polymerase will hopefully work.

I'll spare you the long ass post I originally wrote and just say this:

Intelligent Design is information not derived via the Scientific Method, which is simply a way of thinking. Teaching information not derived from the Scientific Method in a Science class seems rather backwards.

If anyone is interested in understanding the finer points and logic behind the theory of evolution, try this guy's youtube videos.

YouTube - cdk007's Channel

I was born in the city the religious zealot in the article is from btw (born an Aggie, went to UT)

[Jer]

As far as evolution goes, there will never be sufficient 'missing links' to please creationists. It is always the same argument:

Modern Humans = A
Missing Link = B
Human Ancestor = C

However, whenever a 'B' is found it is automatically set equal to C and the whole process starts over again. It is like trying to get to 0 by subtracting 1/2 of a number from itself and repeating the process.

[Neosutra]

I need to vist the creation museum and and discovery institute...

Spoiler: show

with some lighter fluid and some matches

[Meian]

Edit: Accident ignore this mistake double post >>

[Meian]

That's a summary. Have the actual passages? If I'm wrong idc but I was pretty sure of this.

Genesis 5:4 (New King James Version)
4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.

The answer to where Cain found his wife.
Cain no Tsuma

I like this one best tbh XD

[Eratosthenes]

As far as evolution goes, there will never be sufficient 'missing links' to please creationists. It is always the same argument:

Modern Humans = A
Missing Link = B
Human Ancestor = C

However, whenever a 'B' is found it is automatically set equal to C and the whole process starts over again. It is like trying to get to 0 by subtracting 1/2 of a number from itself and repeating the process.

I love this reasoning. Eventually it comes down to this: You have no proof you're descended from your father until you find someone who's halfway between you and your father!

[Yeargdribble]

YouTube - Shermer & Purdom Interview at Creation Museum

This is Michael Shermer interviewing Georgia Purdom of the Creation Museum. She is Dr. Purdom... with a PhD in Molecular Genetics. I'm amazed at how calm Shermer can be and while I think Dawkins is right in terms of having atheists come out of the closet, I think Shermer (like Dennett) has a better approach with his calmness.

Video is kinda long, but essentially her argument consistently is, if the scientific evidence contradicts the Bible, it is wrong, because we know the Bible is right. All scientific theories are based on presuppositions of man and are incorrect. (The fact that she is presupposing the Bible to be true is irrelevant because it IS true, therefore not a presupposition.)

The other point she makes is that while through history people have "interpreted" the Bible, she is not interpreting it, but rather reading what is true. When called on this as being her interpretation, she adamantly sticks to the opinion that her interpretation isn't interpretation. It's just true.

So 25 minutes summed up....
Rule 1: Bible = true
Rule 2: Disagrees with Bible = false
Rule 3: Evidence is irrelevant (refer to rule 2)

[Price]

Eh

I live in the suburbs of DFW and our school did a good job of teaching this stuff. My Freshman year Biology class had a 1~2 week section on Evolution, a test then moved on. Revisited it for the final and that was that. Same year I'm in World Geography and we touch all the major religions as we study the areas they are predominant in.

Nobody complained, all was well ' '

Christfags will be Christfags, there is plenty enough of them around. And EVERY private school around here is religious based and expensive as fuck.

[Yeargdribble]

And EVERY private school around here is religious based and expensive as fuck.

Yeah, this is very true as a person living in the DFW area and having lived in other parts of Texas, so the suggestion to private school in Texas for science education is fail. Private schools here are for wealthy religious people who don't want their kids minds polluted with stuff about science and sex ed but instead spend 60% of their class day reading the Bible or learning other subjects as they relate to Christianity. Notable in this is the revisionist history they get about us being founded explicitly to be a Christian nation.

[burrito]

And EVERY private school around here is religious based and expensive as fuck.

Texas has been, by far, the worst about private education--- I went through a good mix of public/private before I moved here, and my mum was pretty determined to keep me out of the public education system here.... but after searching/realising that every private school within a 3 hour's drive radius from our house was a Christian private school/outrageously expensive.... she pretty much said fuck it and tossed me in the public education shark tank.

I lucked out going to a not-so-bad district (CFISD, fuuuuuck HISD), but honestly gained nothing of educational value there, other than a fine-tuning of my good off/general destruction and mayhem skills.

.... and because I'm too lazy to search for whoever said crap about the weather here--- WINTER WHERE?

[Zhais]

YouTube - Shermer & Purdom Interview at Creation Museum

This is Michael Shermer interviewing Georgia Purdom of the Creation Museum. She is Dr. Purdom... with a PhD in Molecular Genetics. I'm amazed at how calm Shermer can be and while I think Dawkins is right in terms of having atheists come out of the closet, I think Shermer (like Dennett) has a better approach with his calmness.

Video is kinda long, but essentially her argument consistently is, if the scientific evidence contradicts the Bible, it is wrong, because we know the Bible is right. All scientific theories are based on presuppositions of man and are incorrect. (The fact that she is presupposing the Bible to be true is irrelevant because it IS true, therefore not a presupposition.)

The other point she makes is that while through history people have "interpreted" the Bible, she is not interpreting it, but rather reading what is true. When called on this as being her interpretation, she adamantly sticks to the opinion that her interpretation isn't interpretation. It's just true.

So 25 minutes summed up....
Rule 1: Bible = true
Rule 2: Disagrees with Bible = false
Rule 3: Evidence is irrelevant (refer to rule 2)

Holy wtf at a phd in genetics saying that shit.

[Jaybar]

Those statements were always fun to dissect in logic's class.