Flare Sci-Fi Forums: It's not my fault, it's my family!

This is topic It's not my fault, it's my family! in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/255.html

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I've been surrounded by high levels of conservative Christian right-wing views for the past several days, so here's my chance to let off some steam. Don't hurt me.

The following is a story from the local paper that literally left me speechless.

CONSERVATIVES ELIMINATING EVOLUTION THEORY IN MANY STATES' SCHOOLS
by Hanna Rosin

For biology teacher Al Frisby, teaching evolution to the many studends who take the Bible literally is like "banging his face against a brick wall." More than a third of his students at his suburban high school in Shawnee Mission, Kan., wrote in a final evaluation last year that they did not believe a single thing their teacher had to say on the subject.

The challenge Frisby faces is apt to get tougher next year. On Wednesday, a majority of the Kansas Board of Education may vote to pass a new statewide science curriculum for kindergarten through 12th grade that wipes out virtually all mention of evolution and related concepts: natural selection, common ancestors, and the origins of the universe.

The new curriculum will not explicitly prohibit the teaching of evolution. But its exclusion will severely undermine such efforts when they come under attack from students, parents, principals, or local school boards in a state where fights over evolution are as commonplace as cornfields.

If the conservative majority on the school board prevails as expected, it will mark the most decisive victory in recent years for the creationist movement: Christians who read the book of Genesis literally and believe that God created human beings and animals fully formed.

"This is the most explicit censorship of evolution I have ever seen," said Molleen Matsumara of the National Center for Science Education.

In the past two decades, creationists have undergone their own process of evolution. After a series of court decisions from 1968 to 1987 barred the movement's efforts to have biblical creationism taught in the schools, activists changed their strategy. They began to focus instead on attacking evolution as an unproven theory, picking apart such basic building blocks as fossil records and geological dating.

National organizations dedicated to "scientific creationism" published books and videos and magazines designed to educate students on how to resist what they described as the "conspiricy" of evolution.

The movement's success has been evident in the past five years. In dozens of states, religious conservatives on school boards and legislatures have been chipping away at what scientists consider a bedrock concept of biology:

In the last four years, school boards in seven states - Arizona, Alabama, Illinois, New Mexico, Texas, Kansas, and Nebraska - have tried to remove evolution from state science standards or water down the concepts, with varying degrees of success.

State legislatures in both Georgia and Ohio have bills pending that require all educators who teach evolution to also teach evidence inconsistent with it.

In 1995, Alabama passed a law mandating that all biology books used in public schools bear a sticker describing evolution as a "controversial theory...No one was present when life first appeared. Therefore any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory and not a fact."

In 1996, the legislature in Tennessee, home of the famous 1925 Scopes trial over the teaching of evolution, considered (though ultimately rejected) a bill allowing public school teachers to be fired if they taught evolution as "fact" rather than "theory."

In 1997, the Texas Board of Education proposed replacing all biology books in the state with new ones that did not mention evolution. The move was considered to signal a national trend because Texas is the second largest purchaser of textbooks after California. The proposal failed by a slim majority.

------------------
"We took a small flight, in the middle of the night, from one tiny place to another."
--
Ben Folds Five

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Looks like we need another Clarence Darrow to argue for John Scopes.

Those with a short attention span can watch "Inherit the Wind" (1960) which is a damn good movie in it's own right. It also contains the following repartee:

Matthew Harrison Brady: We must not abandon faith! Faith is the most important thing!

Henry Drummond: Then why did God plague us with the capacity to think? Mr. Brady, why do you deny the one thing that sets above the other animals? What other merit have we? The elephant is larger, the horse stronger and swifter, the butterfly more beautiful, the mosquito more prolific, even the sponge is more durable. Or does a sponge think?

Matthew Harrison Brady: I don't know. I'm a man, not a sponge!

Henry Drummond: Do you think a sponge thinks?

Matthew Harrison Brady: If the Lord wishes a sponge to think, it thinks!

Henry Drummond: Does a man have the same privilege as a sponge?

Matthew Harrison Brady: Of course!

Henry Drummond: Then this man wishes to have the same privilege of a sponge, he wishes to think!

------------------
You can't go wrong with cocktail weenies! They taste as good as they look, and they come with this delicious red sauce. It looks like ketchup. It tastes like ketchup. But brother, it ain't ketchup!
~Homer Simpson

Posted by Orion Syndicate (Member # 25) on :

This is unbelievable! It's censorship gone mad! IMHO, the whole point of an education is so that people can use what they learn and then think about it, not just accept it blindly as the truth. It seems that this creation ideology is being forcefed to students with no room to think.

Personally, as a believer in creation and evolution, I think that there is a common ground because creationists believe that god created the universe, and scientists have shown the evolution side. Can't it be possible that god created evolution? Both sides are just so stuck in their corners and adamant, that they will not consider other possible alternatives - that they may BOTH be right.

------------------
Do business with us, or we'll ruin you.

[This message has been edited by Orion Syndicate (edited August 10, 1999).]

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

In my opinion, if you're teaching one in a public education system, you must teach the other. I had a teacher that taught evolution as utter fact and that annoyed me to no end.

(Not because of my beliefs at all, but because of how annoying intentional misinformation and lies are.)

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")

[This message has been edited by Elim Garak (edited August 10, 1999).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Yeah, right. And in Health class, they should have to teach the "Stork Theory" of how babies are made, alongside the "Sex Theory." It's got as much validity as Creationism compared to Evolution.

What a load of utter crap "Creation Science" is.
True, we don't have all the mechanisms behind evolution worked out precisely. So? I don't know exactly how my CAR runs, either, but I know it has something to do with gas, not fairies.

------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"

Posted by HMS White Star (Member # 174) on :

Actually we know exactly how a car runs, a better example is we don't know exactly why fire burns (we really don't how fire burns), but we know it does burn.

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

Evolution isn't fact. Neither is creation. They're both theories. On every other subject I'm taught the major theories. I fail to see why it should be so different.

And "stork" isn't a theory.

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")

[This message has been edited by Elim Garak (edited August 10, 1999).]

Posted by Dani (Member # 57) on :

Personally, I don't see how they can deny that life existing on earth has changed since Biblical times. It has. I do beleive in creation, but I also beleive that we have "evolved" to some degree or another since creation. (I think this theory is called "Intelligent Design", correct me if I'm wrong.) I'm not going to try and convince you that what I beleive is right, I just CANNOT understand how they can totally reject the fact that both man and beast are in a constant state of change...

------------------
"You're just about as useful as .JPGs to Helen Keller."

- Weird Al (It's All About The Pentiums)

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

Okay, evolution is a fact, that's true. But evolving from another species or whatever that theory's called isn't. Dani has a point. You cannot deny that evolution happens, but to say that we evolved from something else is not necessarily true. That's all I'm saying. Each theory has its own validity.

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

*Pities Sol and hands him a copy of Discover*

------------------
"I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know."
--Picard to Data, "In Theory"

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Creationism isn't a theory. A theory is a conclusion based on plausible hypotheses based on known facts and observation, and experimentation.

Creationism is a "just so" story. A Fable. A made-up explanation for things which were not understood at the time.

There are no known facts which support Creationism, it is not supported by any scientific experimentation, it has no bases in biology, chemistry, physics, or any other science, and is certainly not supported by observation (when was the last time you saw a species "pop" into existence?). It's an "uneducated guess."

------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

First, well said. Let me sum it up with a little quote.

'Blind faith is the crutch of fools'.

Sounds to me like they are moving from some form of thoughtful faith to utterly blind faith. Any ideas on why this is happening? (Or is it time for a purge of sorts?).

------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of Internationalising an issue to your advantage"

Field Marshal Military Project
http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net

Posted by Jaresh Inyo on :

Some Christians make me sick.

------------------
Josh: I think they're getting to know each other a bit too well, if you catch my drift.
Me: Oh, I agree. I think they're spending too much time together, that is of course, if you catch my drift.
Asher: I think he's *ucking her, and he's cheating on his wife, and he's risking his marriage, and if his wife finds out about it she'll leave him and take their son, and his life will be ruined. If you catch my drift...

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - A. Einstein

Science deals with the what and how...Religion deals with the why. People insist that one is greater than the other, while I believe that BOTH are equally important. As mankind learns and grows, we seek a purpose. We base our lives on what we know, and what we believe in.

------------------
Signature
Note: The Signature feature is currently enabled by this bulletin board's administrator. You may use UBB Code in this field, but not HTML. The UBB Code Image tag is not permitted, however.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I didn't post my feelings, mostly because I needed to ice my fingers after typing that and trying to hold the paper up at the same time.

First of all the idea of evolution vs. creation is a misnomer, created mainly for propaganda. In both instances the planet was "created." The real argument is evolution vs spontaneous appearence. The evidence is much more in favor of the former than the latter.

But that's almost besides the point. There is a group out there called the "Association of Biblical Astronomers" or the "Biblical Association of Astronomers" or somesuch. Their central belief? That Copernicus was a wicked Satan worshipper and that the Earth does indeed (as "proved" in the Bible) stand at the center of the universe. Now, just like the "Creation Science Institute," they have real scientists writing real papers that claim to support this idea. So, should geocentrism get equal time in Astronomy classes?

I don't blame religion in general, though, or Christianity in particular. That's only the means these people use. The source of the problem is that most people are just plain ignorant when it comes to basic scientific concepts. Michael Reagan, for one, believes that science is based on blind acceptance of the statements of others. That is, in fact, the polar opposite of what science actually is. But the idea of science being "just another faith system" is in our society like a cancer.

Postscript:

Of course, it is possible to have an irrational faith in "science" as a monolithic entity. But this usually falls into the category of "personality cult." For instance, there were people convinced that Einstein was wrong because he seemingly contradicted Newton. The difference between that and actual science is that Einstein's theories, radical as they were, were accepted after just a short while, following independant verification.

And then there's the whole issue of faith in the concept of rationalism as a whole, but I'll let Kant and Hume battle that one out.

------------------
"We took a small flight, in the middle of the night, from one tiny place to another."
--
Ben Folds Five

Posted by bryce (Member # 42) on :

Sol I don't believe any of that crap, but...

The Laws of Thermal Dynamics (I believe it's the second) disproves the theory of evolution. I'll tell you why if you don't want to look it up yourself, but I am running out of time.

I learned that in Chemistry my Junior year of HS. My teacher pointed that out the first day of class.

------------------
It's all about the Pentiums, Baby!
"I'm down with Bill Gates, I call him Money for short
I phone him up at home and I make him do my tech support"

[This message has been edited by bryce (edited August 11, 1999).]

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

IIRC, the second law of thermodynamics deals with how when energy is converted from one form to another, some of it is turned into heat and such.

Actually, I could probably use the first law of thermodynamics to disprove the existence of any sort of deity (in a semi-serious sort of way), but I'd have to do further research on the subject.

------------------
The Molybdenum Home Page

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Sorry, Bryce, but you must not have paid attention in that class. Either that, or your teacher didn't know what he/she was talking about, and must not have paid attention in THEIR class. (Was this, by any chance, in a "Christian" school?)

I assume you mean to show that order cannot arise from disorder, re the laws of Thermodynamics. This would be all well and good, EXCEPT...

Thermodynamics applies only to a CLOSED system, which is receiving no new input of energy from any outside source.

Earth is NOT a closed system. Earth receives its energy mostly from the SUN. Since the sun gives of BILLIONS of times more energy than is utilized on Earth, the laws of Thermodynamics are NOT violated.

It takes very little energy to mutate a gene, which is why new cold bacteria and viruses are constantly springing up.

Since the UNIVERSE is the only closed system, and since Universal Entropy IS increasing, no violation exists there, either.

------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited August 11, 1999).]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Also, complexity rising out of chaos is a rather common occurance in the natural world. Shockingly common, in the sense that it pops up in places no one thought to look. The creation of a termite mound, for instance. There is no overarching plan to these mounds. Rather, each termite has a rather simple instinct that says "Pick up this rock, and place it where you find another." After the whole colony has been doing this for a time, you have a very large and very intricate lair.

At any rate, I've always been somewhat baffled by this whole mess in the first place. When I was younger (and more religious) I went to one of these "Creation Science" conferences. I never could quite see why they thought that the basis of Christianity lays in a literal seven day creation period anymore than it depends upon a geocentric universe.

------------------
"We took a small flight, in the middle of the night, from one tiny place to another."
--
Ben Folds Five

Posted by bryce (Member # 42) on :

I was talking about the whole universe First! The sun (and the universe) doesn't recharge and will go out in a few billion if I am not mistaken?

No, it's public. Look up Wheelersburg High School in Infoseek, the addy changes about every yr.

------------------
It's all about the Pentiums, Baby!
"I'm down with Bill Gates, I call him Money for short
I phone him up at home and I make him do my tech support"

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Since NOBODY knows what conditions were BEFORE the beginning of the Universe, we cannot confirm OR deny that the Universe's existence in and of itself defies the laws of thermodynamics. We CAN, however, deduce that the titanic amount of energy released in the initial stages of the Big Bang was far less than that required to form galaxies (indeed, it is currently believed that more than 90% of the Universe's original mass was converted to energy and thus dissipated in the initial few minutes of the Universe's existence), and thusly the continued existence and evolution of the universe, while apparently very complex and orderly, is, in fact, increasing in disorder (not to mention that all the energy released by all the stars burning increases entropy tremendously), and therefore does not violate the laws of thermodynamics EITHER.

Ah, I love basic astrophysics.

------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

BTW, the fact that the sun and even the Universe will eventually burn themselves out (in roughly 5 billion years for the sun, and possibly a trillion or more years for the Universe) and don't recharge doesn't go AGAINST the laws of thermodynamics (as your most recent post seems to imply you believe - although I could be misreading it), it PROVES it.

------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited August 12, 1999).]

Posted by JEM on :

I would never have believed this were it not that it was reported in some of the newspapers over here in the UK. The article said that the board had indeed passed a new curriculum which removes all mention of evolution. Did this in fact happen? The same paper had an editorial comment along the lines of 'should this sort of lunacy spread throughout the US or indeed to Europe it will be a blow against the whole of Western civilisation'.

I see there is another thread on a similar topic started by Holst in which I have posted my views on evolution v creationism but I would just like to say;

1) Oh no please don't tell me the hoary old 'Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution' story is still doing the rounds.

2) I was just thinking how such a thing would be impossible in the UK we are more scientifically awere and literate. By the way is it true that according to a recent survey 55% of Americans don't believe man is related to other animals and 59% didn't know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the sun? When I got home on Wednesday I asked my girlfriend if she had seen the eclipse. Apparently the mother of one of her friends at work had burst into tears during the event because she did not undertand what was happening.

Sometimes I feel like crying too.

[This message has been edited by JEM (edited August 13, 1999).]

Posted by HMS White Star (Member # 174) on :

The Second Law thing is kind of silly, anyway the way I remember the Second Law was that in the process of making something orderly, it genrates heat, with tends to make the system in whole more disorderly. This is also the augurment I use to try to explain to my mom why I don't clean my room, (BtW they didn't buy it

, even though it is true).

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )

Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :

I've learned the Second Law of Thermodynamics/Entropy half a million times in chemistry class, and I have no idea how it can be turned around to disapprove Evolution.

------------------
"I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know."
--Picard to Data, "In Theory"

Posted by HMS White Star (Member # 174) on :

What the creationist say Tora, is that since the Second law of Thermodynamics says that the Universe tends to toward Chaos, and eventually will end in Chaos, but the Earth ended up with order (AKA life). Of course what the creationist fail to remember is because the Second law to Thermodynamics says that (well what I understand of it, because it is impossible to find a simple defination of it, believe me I tried

) that energy used to create order (lets say cleaning) actually releases heat which tends to cause disorder. So basically the more you organize the more messy it becomes (well the whole system at least, while your end could be very orderly, the whole system becomes non orderly). So I used this logical arguement to tell my parents that cleaning my room was actually a bad thing, alas they didn't buy it

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )

Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :

Sadly, parents are quite uninterested in the heat-death of the universe and the hastening effect that ceaning your room will have upon it.

Now go clean your room!

------------------
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

JEM: I really can't imagine them banning evolution from the National Curriculum over here. Our 'Pro-creationism' lobby is far less large than in the US. They spend most of their time on 'anti-guns' anyway...

I went to a Catholic school where they taught Evolution. Out of standard school books, not special 'christian' ones or something. We were also taught creationism at RE. The teachers said that you should make your own minds up, but mainly they seemed to go for the 'the two ideas don't have to be mutually exclusive' thing. (BTW, who says that the seven days in Genesis is a Earth-day? A day for God could be eternity for us...)

Although there was a point in Sol's first message that made sense. Evolution shouldn't be taught as a 100% proved theory, like the laws of thermodynamics. The contradictory evidence, or ideas should also be presented. Alternative views should always be presented where possible. Within reason.

Also, doesn't Chaos theory have something to do with the apparent order rising out of increasing entropy of the universe somehhow creating order (oooh, so long since Physics classes), or have I gone mad?

------------------
Headmaster suspended for using big-faced boy as satellite-dish
-The Day Today

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I actually have a science book that teaches the Geocentric model next to the Heliocentric model. It then lists several pieces of evidence in favor of Heliocentric, and against Geocentric. It then states that, in light of the evidence, it is logical to assume that Heliocentric is correct. This is what they should do with Evolution and Creation (SPONTANEOUS Creation, that is). List the basic ideas of each theory, then list the evidence. If no conclusion can be drawn, then let the students decide. Nothing besides mathematics should be taught as absolute truth.

------------------
HEAD KNIGHT: We are now... no longer the Knights Who Say 'Ni'.
KNIGHTS OF NI: Ni! Shh!
HEAD KNIGHT: Shh! We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoop-boing-goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv'.
RANDOM: Ni!

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Hmm. You are of course aware that there are a few who believe that the Bible sets the value of pi at three? Not even math is safe from dogma.

------------------
"I am just a worthless liar. I am just an imbecile. I will only complicate you. Trust in me and fall as well."
--
Tool

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

It's a bit hazy, but I remember hearing that a country in Europe (or posilby Asia), tried once to arbitarilly set pi to 4.
They eventually didn't do it, due to th efact that trading with the international community would have been completly buggered. "So, what's the circumference of these tires then?" "Oh, around 40cm. Or 40 inches. One of the two. I dunno, about as big as my arm? Thereabouts?"

The thing about Maths is that it proves itself. The other sciences need outside evidence, whereas one theory in Maths proves another, and you only need to diddle on a calculator to prove it.

And as far as I am aware, it's almost impossible to 100% prove something in the sciences. Yo ubasically keep testing until you fail to disprove the theory, correct? And so far, No-one has come up with a peice of evidence which completly refutes evolution, right?

------------------
Headmaster suspended for using big-faced boy as satellite-dish
-The Day Today

Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :

No, but pi was nearly made a non-true value by legislative fiat.

Observe:

http://www.snopes.com/spoons/faxlore/pi.htm

To tell the truth, while evolution seems to explain the physical evidence fairly well, the total amount of material supporting it is somewhat sparse. I have no problems using evolution to explain some of the workings of the universe any more than I am loath to use Newtonian physics to explain and predict the happenings in my everyday world (except for those rare occasions when I travel at near-light-speed velocities ).

If the heliocentric theory did not disprove God's existence (nor prove it) then evolution stands little chance of doing the same.

--Baloo

------------------
It's perfectly logical. Except for this little bit right here.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Jeez, that Urban Legend sure had been warped by the time I heard about it.

------------------
Headmaster suspended for using big-faced boy as satellite-dish
-The Day Today