Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Utah Votes 'No' to Darwin's Critics 792

Posted by Zonk from the sanity-reigns dept.
NewbieV writes "An article in Tuesday's New York Times notes that proposed legislation which would have 'stress[ed] that not all scientists agree on which theory regarding the origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race, is correct;' has failed by a 46-28 vote in a Republican-controlled state House of Representatives."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Utah Votes 'No' to Darwin's Critics More

Utah Votes 'No' to Darwin's Critics

Comments Filter:

  • Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish (Score:3, Informative)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Tuesday February 28, 2006 @02:57PM (#14819058)

    Much more information regarding this decision can be found in this Salt Lake Tribune article [sltrib.com], including many memorable quotes from the legislators involved.

    From TFA:
    ...religion infused the debate on SB96 from the beginning. [Senator Chris] Buttars forwarded the proposal because he insisted many evolution lessons contradict religious instruction. He is disgusted by the idea that humans evolved from what he calls a "lower species."
    Also from TFA (this one is priceless):
    "There are a number of influential legislators who believe you evolved from an ape," Buttars said following the vote. "I didn't."
    Kudos to the Utah House of Representatives for giving this bill (as well as Senator Buttars himself) the treatment they both so richly deserve.
    • "There are a number of influential legislators who believe you evolved from an ape," Buttars said following the vote. "I didn't."

      I don't the apes would want to claim Buttars as a descendant, either.
      • > > There are a number of influential legislators who believe you evolved from an ape," Buttars said following the vote. "I didn't."
        >
        > I don't the apes would want to claim Buttars as a descendant, either.

        Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western United States lies a small unregarded salt pond. Adjacent to this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight is an utterly insignificant little state whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they sti

    • any relationship with Butt-head?

      • Re:Butt-ars? (Score:4, Informative)

        by fishybell ( 516991 ) <.moc.liamtoh. .ta. .llebyhsif.> on Tuesday February 28, 2006 @03:34PM (#14819528) Homepage Journal
        Well, listening to the morning [livejournal.com] radio [x96.com] here one comes to realize that Buttars is pronounced Butters, much akin to the poor chap living in Southpark, CO. He is, of course, not known here for Just the anti-darwin bill, but essentially Every horrible bill that is put before the state legislature. Everything from anti-gay bills to anti-hate crime bills to anti-video games bills all start with, or are strongly supported by, Chris Buttars. If he did not attend, I'd say roughly 50-75% more actual work would get done (note: this of course, would still not be a lot, this is Utah we're talking about).

        For more Chris Buttars, please read [livejournal.com] through his various appearances as a nominee for "Boner of the Day" (morning show, daily moron contest).

        Some of his great quotes include:

        • "A great deal of my political stands come from my faith. I represent the values that have always been America's morality." - Chris Buttars
        • "If you read the homosexual rule book, you'll find their greatest target is your kids." - Chris Buttars
        • "I don't think the conservative side of the aisle understands incrementalism and the liberal side does, and that is one way we got beat." - Chris Buttars
        • "The [government] has become totally hostile to moral and religious ideals." - Chris Buttars
        • "They're everywhere. They're getting into everything, The homosexual community is going to undermine society." - Chris Buttars
    • Also from TFA (this one is priceless):

      "There are a number of influential legislators who believe you evolved from an ape," Buttars said following the vote. "I didn't."

      However, there are several legislators who believe Senator Buttars may be evolved from lemmings, or perhaps voles. The vote on that was split 38-36 along species lines.

    • "There are a number of influential legislators who believe you evolved from an ape," Buttars said following the vote. "I didn't.""

      The funny thing about that is that he's actually correct. He didn't evolve from an ape, but that's due to a lack of evolution, not due to a lack of an ape... ^_~

    • I've actually encountered people online who think its strange that there are still greater apes in the world if "they" were supposed to evolve into humans. I mean, why are some apes now humans, and some apes still apes? Is God punishing the greater apes by not evolving them instantly into humans, or us humans with the presence of people who don't grasp simple evolution concepts?
    • Once again some people are deforming the Evolution theory to make their point.
      The theory doesn't say man evolved from the ape but that man and ape once had a _common ancestor_. But I guess we can't expect everybody to be well-informed, even those who hold the power to decide...

      *sigh*
    • I like this one better:
      "Frankly I am not interested in teaching our kids what is in fact based solely on scientific inferences," [James Ferrin] said.
      Something tells me he has no problems teaching kids "facts" based solely on open interpretation of 3000+ year old texts, though.
      =Smidge=

  • Evolution/IEducation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ebob9 ( 726509 ) * on Tuesday February 28, 2006 @02:59PM (#14819079)
    Yknow, this makes me want to vent about the whole "Intellegent Design" argument.

    Whether teaching Evolution, "Intellegent Design", or this Utah "4 out of 5 Dentists agree" crap, the problem is not the teaching of these theories. The key problem is teaching children to question conventional wisdom. Kids need to be taught to always question what they know. Kids need to know what your teacher teaches you is what everyone "thinks" to be right at the moment, but who knows what the future will bring. If you're going to lobby gangbusters to teach the kids of today something, teach them to evaluate what they are taught themselves. The world is many shades of grey, not black and white.

    P.S. - I always slept through English class
    • It's just so much easier to unquestioningly accept anything at face value.
    • Before one is taught to measure conventional wisdom (whatever that means), ought children not be taught the scientific method properly, and thus can be able to grasp why the massive and overwhelming number of scientists (including ID superstar Michael Behe) accept evolution and common descent? Shouldn't they also be taught a bit of basic logic, so that when liars like the Discovery Institute try to foist arguments of incredulity and God-of-the-gaps style claims that children can recognize the invalidity of
      • Before anyone gets on my case about it, I firmly state that I don't believe in intelligent design... it is, however, compatible with evolution... that, along with it's unprovability (is that a word?) might be what makes it so nefarious, because you can demand anything be taught using logic like that (FSM, for example).

        On the other hand, if someone believes in God, then ID makes sense... you don't have to disbelieve evolution, really. And one thing I'm getting quite sick of is using consensus as a form of p
        • In my opinion, I believe evolution ought to be taught with the one liner added: some people believe that a supreme being guided evolution, that it was not strictly natural selection. I really can't see the problem with that.

          Actualy, I'd think a better approach would be to teach the mechanics of evolution in biology class, and discuss the question of weither or not it was guided by a supriem being to philosophy class. I'd think most people would be satisfied with this approach. No metaphysics should b

        • And will you add that disclaimer to gravity, plate tectonics, magnetism and so on? What makes evolution so durned special that it gets to have disclaimers?
        • In my opinion, I believe evolution ought to be taught with the one liner added: some people believe that a supreme being guided evolution, that it was not strictly natural selection. I really can't see the problem with that.

          Did you even read what the parent post was saying? You seem to be unable to grasp that there is such a thing as a scientific method, and that scientific theories are thought within the framework of the scientific method.

          What purpose would it serve to introduce a one-liner about belief, w
      • That's why Timster's Official Science Teaching Method requires two teachers. Instead of teaching a fact (like how fire is a reaction with oxygen) the two teachers dress up in period costume and argue it out. The students don't know which is right, and are never told. The teachers could demonstrate experiments that supported their position, present video evidence, etc.

        Thus the students learn more than an unimportant list of facts -- they learn how to determine truth in a scientific debate.
      • Yes, you are probably right that we should educate everyone on what the scientific process is and is not. It never ceases to amaze me - oh SWEET, another episode of The Bachelor: Paris is on right now.

        Gotta run. Don't have time.


        (yes, this is sarchastic - and sadly, true.)
    • That's fine as long as they don't question Evolution.
      Just try questioning it on Slashdot and watch what happens.
    • Don't give them any ideas. As intelligent design loses out, I can see the lines being drawn at total relativism and it won't be just science in the crosshairs.

    • You would not willingly expose children to putrid waste or toxic chemicals, so why expose them to the intellectual pollutions that are called "intelligent design" or "creationism"?

      If these concepts would rest purely on religious foundations, that would not be so bad. But in reality they are based on a corrosive mix of religion with intellectual dishonesty, bad logic, and intentional distortions of the truth. People object to the religious influence, but that is merely the innocent of it.

      By all means, le

    • ID isn't about encouraging challenging the conventional wisdom. It's about diving back to the conventional wisdom of centuries ago which has been conclusively superseded. And worse, a structure of learning that allows ID is simply unworkable, because it would accept astrology and other such ideas and thus prevent further questioning and investigation. The whole point of using the nebulous concept of 'intelligence' in ID is that it is a conventional wisdom that cannot be skeptically addressed or challenged,
    • The key problem is teaching children to question conventional wisdom.

      I think there are two facets of this:

      1) In science class, students ought to learn the scientific method and how it can be used to prove or disprove a given hypothesis. This should not be done as part of the discussion on evolution, but as part of every science class. Students should be welcomed to try to prove or disprove any hypothesis using the scientific method. However, it's unlikely that any student will be well enough versed in
  • Enough said.

    Simon

  • Allow me to be the first to say... (Score:3, Funny)

    by camusflage ( 65105 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2006 @02:59PM (#14819086)
    THANK GOD! :)
  • It must have been devine intervention to get this sort of action in Utah, of all places.
    • I realize that Mormons tend to get lumped in the "nutjob" category of religions, and while some of their beliefs are... a bit different, they are very level headed when it comes to science. Indeed they even encorouage it. One of the higher ranking Mormon officials in our area actually has a PhD in Evolutionary Biology. So, considering how many of those Conservative Republicans were likely Mormon, this is not terribly surprising at all.

  • saints preserve us (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ExE122 ( 954104 ) * on Tuesday February 28, 2006 @03:00PM (#14819091) Homepage Journal
    I found an article [deseretnews.com] that talks more about why Utah doesn't get up in arms about evolution. Here's a part of it:

    Professor Duane Jeffery, a professor of biology at Brigham Young University, estimates that "probably 90 percent of people who are LDS think the church is against evolution. But they don't get upset about it being taught in public schools." The reason, he says, is the church seminary system, which provides junior high and high school students with a class period of religious instruction during school hours. "Most parents feel their religion is being take care of in seminary," Jeffery says. Conservative gadfly Gayle Ruzicka, president of the Utah Eagle Forum, sees it this way: "Utah's children, for the most part are taught by their parents that evolution is not correct science. The parents feel more control because they know they're teaching their children the truth at home." That truth, she says, is that "you are a child of God," a phrase that Mormons learn from the time they can talk, she says. "It's a year or two of learning about evolution vs. a lifetime of hearing that you are a child of God. Evolution just doesn't win out."

    It looks like Utah doesn't feel threatened by teaching evolution because they have faith in what they believe (and what they learn in the seminary). I'd say that's a step in the right direction for seperation of church and state... that is assuming that these semenary classes aren't mandated.

    • Re:saints preserve us (Score:2, Informative)

      by lexbaby ( 88257 )
      FYI: Mormon Seminary is "Release Time" from High School. The school sees it as the student isn't at the school for that period. This is true because the Seminary in on church property near the school, NOT on school property. Outside of Utah and some surounding areas, Seminary is taught early before school starts. Usually at a church or home of the instructor.

      It is a good system. Let the schools teach science, let church teach faith, and let each individual figure it out for themselves.
    • This is precisely the best sort of argument against letting public schools teach children religion.

      "How do you feel about having your child instructed in what's 'true' by a [Mormon/Muslim/Catholic/Protestant/Jew/Satanist] teacher?"

      Smart religious people obviously would want their religion taught to their kids by their church, not by a public school. It's really only people who irrationally assume that the public school would be teaching just their religion and no one else's that are in favor of stuff like

      • "How do you feel about having your child instructed in what's 'true' by a [Mormon/Muslim/Catholic/Protestant/Jew/Satanist] teacher?"

        Sure, as long as he's not Episcopalean.

    • Seminary classes aren't mandated, and from the school's point of view, it's just "release time", where kids are released from normal classes to do some other structured activity. I don't remember the rules on which activities qualify for release time and which don't.

      Having said that, there are schools where Mormons so predominate, that lots of non-Mormon kids attend seminary to fit in and be with their friends. Worse, when there are only a handful of kids in a school who don't attend seminary, everyone kn
  • Mormon schools which don't pay taxes but do get public funding should not be allowed to teach children that a metaphysical spirit created the Universe, unless they teach that such a statement isn't science, isn't a fact, isn't a theory, and that most people don't believe that it is literally true.
    • Does that include the metaphysical spirt known as "random mutation"?
      • I dunno. Does inventing nonsense phrases like "metaphysical spirit" to notions like mutations, make those nonsense phrases meaningful or honest appraisals of the word or concept that follows?
        • I dunno. Does inventing nonsense phrases like "metaphysical spirit" to notions like mutations, make those nonsense phrases meaningful or honest appraisals of the word or concept that follows?

          When I see the word "metaphysical" I think "belief without proof", and when I see the word "spirit", I see "that which causes a portion of the natural world to be motivated to do something". Thus since there is no proof that mutations are truly random, the amount of importance put on random mutation by those who clai
          • What the hell is "historical time"? Are you saying that I must disbelieve that Andromeda is hundreds of millions of light years away because it takes light a good deal of time to reach us? I mean, what level of nihilism are you willing to invoke, how much observation are you willing to dismiss? Is your world view so important that you will even reject emperical inference?
      • Where "random" means "unexplained due to overwhelming complexity of unknown, unquantified factors", no - it's not unknowable, just unknown.

        That is, of course, the definition of "random" taught in science classes. Not the sinister, purely metaphysical definition taught in pseudoscience creationism classes, to which you refer.

        Have you stopped beating your wife?
        • Where "random" means "unexplained due to overwhelming complexity of unknown, unquantified factors", no - it's not unknowable, just unknown.

          Either way, it's still an appeal to faith- a cop out.

          That is, of course, the definition of "random" taught in science classes. Not the sinister, purely metaphysical definition taught in pseudoscience creationism classes, to which you refer.

          Anybody who claims to know what happened before the invention of the written word is using a sinister, metaphysical explainatio
    • Evolution has nothing to do with who or what created the universe. Evolution specifically does not explain how life began. I think that both sides are losing sight of what evolution really is.

      "most people don't believe that it is literally true."
      I think you'd be surprised at exactly how many people belive that creationism is literally true.
      • I didn't mention evolution. I mentioned only the teaching of Creationism, a religious story, as science in publicly funded schools.

        You can play your political games with your "both sides", but they're irrelevant to science. There are many opinions about cosmology, but religious stories are not among the facts.

        I'm not so much surprised by how many people believe in literal biblical creation, I'm disgusted by it. That's one reason it has to stop being taught as science, or anything but a metaphysical story, i
        • Last I knew, public schools taught about Zeus and various other myths of ancient times and required knowing them well enough to pass tests. I'd say that even if you think creationism is bunk, its worth teaching about. In fact, I learned about native healing circles from teachers who believed in that too. Aliens? We dealt with those too ... even watched those tv shows in class about people who were abducted. Why? Its pop culture and not just "science" makes up our day to day lives.

          Interacting with most
    • There is no such thing as a Mormon school that "doesn't pay taxes and does get public funding". All of the Mormon schools are privately funded. And if you go to a biology class at a Mormon university, you are going to learn about evolution.
  • From what I understand from the article, the bill had already been amended from its original form and only would have required teachers to state that "not all scientists agree about evolution or the origin of species" (which is technically true, though potentially misleading).

    Also:

    1. I'm slightly annoyed at people using "anti-Darwin" and "anti-evolutionist" interchangibly.
    2. I wish the media would stop trying to fuel the "Science/Logic vs. Religion/Faith War", which to a large extent wouldn't exist if they

    • From what I understand from the article, the bill had already been amended from its original form and only would have required teachers to state that "not all scientists agree about evolution or the origin of species" (which is technically true, though potentially misleading).

      It's not potentially misleading, it is misleading. Even ID proponents like Behe accept evolution and common descent.

      The statement is designed to make it appear as if there is a conflict in science when, in fact, there isn't. The

    • From what I understand from the article, the bill had already been amended from its original form and only would have required teachers to state that "not all scientists agree about evolution or the origin of species" (which is technically true, though potentially misleading).

      "Technically true" is not good enough. Judge Jones in the Dover case did a rather good job of explaining why selective use of a "technically true" disclaimer is impermissible.

      This paragraph singles out evolution from the rest of the s

      • And that's ultimately the problem, and the confirmation as well of the religious motives of those trying to push Intelligent Design. Where are the challenges to General Relativity or Germ Theory? Where's the disclaimer on teaching electromagnetism? The theory that gets singled out, oddly enough, is the theory that most obviously blows a hole in a profoundly religious world view; Creationism. Now IDers would have us believe that that is some sort of odd coincidence, that they truly aren't trying to sneak

    • “Moral relativism” seeks to eliminate all meaningful definitions of “morality”.

      “Moral relativism” is a redundant term. All morals are intrinsically relative to the people, times, and places from which they originate. Thousands of years ago, it used to be that stoning women to death for getting raped was moral, while today, that is no longer the case. It also used to be moral to have slaves, but that too was based on whether you lived in the north or the south. Peo

  • I'm not really surprised (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) * <jhummel.johnhummel@net> on Tuesday February 28, 2006 @03:06PM (#14819153) Homepage
    As a Mormon myself (but not raised in Utah, so I'm usually considered cool), I'm not surprised. Most LDS members that I know kind of shrug their shoulders at the whole "intelligent design" thing. Sure, we believe God had something to do with it, but we're a) not going to force it down someone else's throat, based on the 11th article of Faith:

    11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.


    So the idea of making up a law saying "here's how it is, suckers! Believe this way!" is against the typical belief of "separation of church and state". (Granted, Utah is not a shining example of this all the time - see the liquer laws they have, but like I said, I don't live there).

    Even if we believe that God had a hand in it, there's a lot of individual belief in how it happens. Was "Garden of Eden" a fable of sorts for early Isrealites since they wouldn't get "Well, God started the universe from the vacuum using a 20 dimensional algorithm that would solidify into 3 stable dimensions of space, 1 of time, and gravity with values X" - or was there a "snap of the fingers"? Some church authorities have given their opinions on it, but I've never seen an official "it was this and no other".

    I'm more of a "what does it really matter in the grand scheme of things" anyway. i don't think God's going to ask me what I thought about "intelligent design" or "evolution" when I die - he's going to ask me about how I treated my wife, my children, my friends, my enemies, my coworkers, and others. So I believe in evolution - yes, the Darwin version - until a voice on high says something different. And even then, I'll check to make sure somebody didn't slip me some really interesting mushrooms - just in case.

    Most of us like science - and yes, I even appreciate the ones that show my religion, like most others, is probably full of it. I just use the "South Park Mormon episode thought" about the whole thing.

    Then, there's b) getting voted out of office. Remember the Dover school officials who decided to bring Intelligent Design to their schools - and the next election got voted out? Even in a Mormon state, all an opponent has to do is start up "You're trying to mix church and state? What are you doing?", and there are enough non-Mormons in the state to resonate with that, and enough Mormons who think about Illinois and how the state not doing their job in protecting *all* religions that their dander gets up.

    Anyway - good move by the congress, by the majority whip who brought in an amendment that all but killed the bill, and to the folks who voted it down. As the article says - if a super conservative religious state like Utah won't approve it, there's probably hope for the rest of the country.

    This is all just my opinion. I could be wrong. And I'm hardly a good example of Mormonism anyway - I tend to say "fuck" too much in company ;).
    • Even if we believe that God had a hand in it, there's a lot of individual belief in how it happens. Was "Garden of Eden" a fable of sorts for early Isrealites since they wouldn't get "Well, God started the universe from the vacuum using a 20 dimensional algorithm that would solidify into 3 stable dimensions of space, 1 of time, and gravity with values X" - or was there a "snap of the fingers"? Some church authorities have given their opinions on it, but I've never seen an official "it was this and no other"
    • Hmm, my opinion of mormonism just went up :)
    • 11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

      Note that this does not grant anyone the right to not worship. It is freedom to religion, not freedom from religion.

  • In other news (Score:5, Funny)

    by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2006 @03:06PM (#14819159) Homepage Journal
    In other news, Crest has fought off a push to include the following warning on their toothpaste tubes:
    Only 9 out of 10 Dentists agree that flouride toothpaste reduce cavities. Since there are dissenting Dentists, you're probably better off gargling with Coke.
  • But the bill died on a 46-to-28 vote in the Republican-controlled House after being amended by the majority whip, Stephen H. Urquhart, a Mormon

    Now we must ask ourselves:

    1) Did the Bill go to Heaven, Hell or Purgatory?
    2) Did the Bill become reincarnated as a better Bill?
    3) Did the Bill do nothing, and now remains just a memory for its beloved?

  • so (Score:2)

    by elmegil ( 12001 ) *
    Can we once and for all put to rest the idea that Republicans are universally luddite anti-science morons? This is not news people, it simply confirms the fact that we are letting the fringes drive the debate and that's just stupid on OUR PART!
    • Sorry, but that's slashdot article of faith number 16, behind "Microsoft is Evil" (falling behind the RIAA and MPAA), "Religion is stupid/evil", and "George Lucas couldn't write good dialog if his life depended on it."
  • Utah Votes 'No' to Darwin's Critics! Dum dum dum, dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum, dum dum dum, dum dum dum dum dumb.



    What? No body else watches South Park [google.com]?

  • Religious Rotgut (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Mekkis ( 769156 )
    Admittedly, I'm not surprised that Utah voted against this. For the Mormon Church (virtually indistinguishable from the State of Utah) to throw their lot in with Evangelical Christians would be self-defeating. Perhaps they recognize the idea that the establishment of a "Christian Nation" as the Evangelicals so dearly wish to do would preclude their participation.

    Basically the whole 'intelligent design' movement is yet another attack on secularism. For those who embrace this theory, it's not enough for
    • I think what's been demonstrated by Dover is that governments like school boards and education boards could be faced with paying big dollars when the inevitable lawsuits are brought against them when they try to sneak religion into the science class. Whether or not a lot of those who are now trouncing on ID actually accept evolution or not, the one thing they understand is money, and how ornery voters get when money is wasted on futile stunts.

    • Re:Religious Rotgut (Score:3, Interesting)

      by caseih ( 160668 )
      It's always possible that "Intellegent Design" doesn't fit with Mormon theology. As a Mormon I can't possibly support this particular ideology of intelligent design, other than the title. Mormons do not believe in an ex-nihilo creation, but rather a more newtonic creation where matter was organized by God. In this framework, (despite what many orthodox Mormons think), there is plenty of room for scientific explainations for how this may have occurred, including evolution. I can say with certainty that t
  • OK, this might get modded down, but I feel I have to say this.

    It's really not a great idea to post these evolution debate storys. This story will generate a huge amount of comments as the creationists try and blast the boards with their nonsense. And I do not hesitate to call it that. Nonsense. Mod points will be burned, flames will fly, karma will be gained and lost again and again in the same comment.

    The creationists are essentially trolls, who are given free reign in these sanctioned stories to start flame wars. I have no doubt that many creantionist comments simply are trolls, looking to start a nice hot flame war. They succeed every time.

    It's all a waste. Slashdot is news for nerds. This is really a US centric debate, and quite a lot of the slashdot readership is simply not in any way interested in the current US culture war. Many find it completely perplexing, like a story you'd hear about people somewhere worshipping a kid with a tail. This creation thing is not really a science story and is more a (very US centric) culture and politics issue.

    OK. I accept that in some cases, these evolution stories are quite relevant in a science context. But only when the evolution/creation "debate" is not itself core and main extent the story. Postings on the NASA PR's censoring of scientists I do want to hear about. That affected scientists, and was only a result of the evolution/creation "debate". Similarly with fuding cuts due to fallout from the issue.

    But stories like these, which are not about science, and are simply about another aspect of a culture/political war going on in the US, do not belong in the science section. There's no science here. There isn't even a victory for science. It's just the outcome of one skirmish between religious groups and secular people in the US.

    I accept that this may be an important issue for US slashdotters, but please understand that this is a very, very, very US centric story, that really belongs in the Slashdot politics section, not in the science section and certainly not on the main page.

    Hopefully this comment might start a good meta discussion that the editors may take notice of. But more than likely it will simply be lost amid the vast torrent of comments, flames and threads surrounding it.
    • It's all a waste. Slashdot is news for nerds. This is really a US centric debate, and quite a lot of the slashdot readership is simply not in any way interested in the current US culture war.

      Actually, I've found that even though I live in the US, there are quite a few threads on Slashdot that do not interest me. I've come up with a unique solution: I don't read them.

    • ...This is really a US centric debate...

      I disagree that this is a US-only debate. See for example Britons unconvinced on evolution [bbc.co.uk].

      Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life: 22% chose creationism 17% opted for intelligent design 48% selected evolution theory and the rest did not know.

      When given a choice of three descriptions for the development of life on Earth, people were asked which one or ones they woul

    • Dude, your post is a complete mad-lib for each and every topic on Slashdot...or any web site anywhere. If you can't take the heat, click elsewhere.


      It's really not a great idea to __[verb1]___ these ___[adj1]_____ stories. This story will generate a huge amount of __[noun1]____ as the ___[collective noun1]______ try and __[verb2]_____ the ___[noun2]_____ with their _[noun3]_______. And I do not hesitate to call it that: ___[noun4]________. ___[plural noun1]____ will be ____[verb3]____, ___[plural noun2]___
  • Whenever there is a perceived conflict between science and religion you are seeing one of three things:

    1- False religion in the face of true science.
    2- False science in the face of true religion.
    3- False religion in the face of false science.

    True science and true religion have the same end goal, the pursuit of truth. They just have different methodologies to go about finding truth.
  • Something wonderful has happened. We may be on the edge of a new age of enlightenment.

    I've discussed evolution versus intelligent design before. I do believe that they do not really have to be enemies. I've said before that evolution does not deny God, or any creator. My complaint has to do with the teaching of intelligent design as a science when it is nothing of the sort. It's religion through and through.

    I've also claimed that even many religious organizations don't disbelieve evolution. After all,
  • The fact they voted "no" is not really all that important when considered with the fact they brought it to consideration in the first place.

    Gee, "we barely got by not looking like a bunch of dumbarses with no sense of logic and science" is a real nice badge of honor.

    Barely above retard-level is an achivement in your large extended mormon family? Nice.
  • First, I'd like to say 'Good Move' on Utah's part. They've got enough of a bad rep from those polygamists living on the borders that they certainly don't need anymore trouble like 'Intelligent Design.'

    That being said, has anyone noticed that those who try to eradicate all traces of religeon from public life are zealots, in almost a religeous way? Except that the state is their God and provider instead of an unseen, all-powerful being.

    Rambling a little bit more, it's been put thusly: "The bible tells us what
  • ...they decided black was white and got run over on a level crossing.
  • Not ALL Republicans are religious fanatics.
    Not ALL people in Utah are religious fanatics.
    Not ALL Mormons are religious fanatics.

    SOME Republicans are religious fanatics.
    SOME people in Utah are religious fanatics.
    SOME Mormons are religious fanatics.

    Anyone with at least a basic understanding in logic can see the difference.

    And that difference is valid for ALL generalisations (exept this one). SOME (insert group) are (insert stereotype). But NOT ALL are!

    As soon as we understand that, we might start to be able t

  • Thank God! (Score:3, Funny)

    by rdmiller3 ( 29465 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2006 @04:01PM (#14819886) Journal
    Thank God they voted this down.

    (Heheheh. Couldn't resist.)

    I am an atheist.
    I am an atheist!
    God knows, I am an ATHEIST!!
    -- Nikita Khrushchev

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close