Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Louisiana, Intelligent Design, and Science Classes

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the oil-already-seeped-into-brain dept.

Education 989

rollcall writes "The Livingston, Louisiana public school district is considering introducing intelligent design into its science curriculum. During the board's meeting Thursday, several board members expressed an interest in the teaching of creationism. 'Benton said that under provisions of the Science Education Act enacted last year by the Louisiana Legislature, schools can present what she termed "critical thinking and creationism" in science classes. Board Member David Tate quickly responded: "We let them teach evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on this School Board believe in creationism. Why can't we get someone with religious beliefs to teach creationism?" Fellow board member Clint Mitchell responded, "I agree...you don't have to be afraid to point out some of the fallacies with the theory of evolution. Teachers should have the freedom to look at creationism and find a way to get it into the classroom."'"

cancel ×

989 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This is clearly a hoax (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029378)

Science classes in Louisiana? You seriously thought we'd buy that?

Re:This is clearly a hoax (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029458)

If there aren't any, it's BP's fault!

Incoming fucktard SquarePixel/sopssa trolling ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029388)

SquarePixel = sopssa = fucktard troll! Remember it moderators!

Peace out!

Re:Incoming fucktard SquarePixel/sopssa trolling . (0, Offtopic)

Anarki2004 (1652007) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029642)

Do you work alone, or is there a whole team of you guys ready to declare sopssa a troll at the moment a new story appears? Even if he is a troll, kindly piss off.

Just go to a religious school already (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029398)

I'd rather not have my tax dollars spent spreading religious FUD. Send your kids to a private school where you can get them to teach anything you want. Problem solved.

Re:Just go to a religious school already (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029526)

What your tax dollars (if your from Louisianna) will be spent on is the inevitable court case brought on by the ACLU, the inevitable defeat, and the inevitable payout of taxpayer's money to settle.

As Mark Twain famously said "God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board."

Re:Just go to a religious school already (4, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029588)

Mark Twain also felt that instead of sending missionaries to Africa that we should be sending them to the South.

Re:Just go to a religious school already (5, Funny)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029732)

You know maybe that's the tact reality based people ought to be taking.

"Dear School board,
  I don't want my tax money going to the ACLU and I know you definitely don't want tax money going to the ACLU, therefore, for the sake of fiscal conservatism and the love of all that's good and holy, don't push creationism. We all believe in the his noodley-ness here, but we'd rather take care of teaching our kids in Sunday school than getting slapped down for the hundredth time by those damned liberal activist judges. Let's make a deal. After Sarah Palin appoints Scalia Jr. as justice Breyer's replacement then we'll try again, but in the meantime, but we're just wasting our time and money while the Court is made up of godless commies."

Can't think of a more appropriate place to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029402)

Think of the children!

They certainly don't know science. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029412)

Creationism should not be taught in a SCIENCE class because it is not science. There is no way to falsify any of its claims.

It's also nonscience because it leads nowhere (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029554)

It's also nonscience because it leads nowhere. It merely says at some point "there's no point looking for why here" and that ends science.

Science is the eternal curious ape asking "why's that, then?". As soon as you put in "irreducible complexity" you've closed off science.

Because this is actually an attempt to end science for all. Religion has been cut back further and further, from being the reason why lions eat people, lightning strikes and illness happens. Now we know that lions are independent creatures that eat meat, lightning strikes are caused by electrical buildup in the clouds and that illnesses are caused by little organisms.

Every time science answers a question "why's that, then?" god gets a little slimmer.

And this is an attempt to kill science once and for all.

Re:They certainly don't know science. (-1, Flamebait)

imamac (1083405) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029558)

I'll assume you meant there's no way to prove any of its claims. The same is true for vertical evolution.

Nope. (5, Informative)

khasim (1285) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029656)

I'll assume you meant there's no way to prove any of its claims. The same is true for vertical evolution.

Nope. I mean that there is no way to set up an experiment to show that its claims are false.

And you're going to have to define "vertical evolution" if you want to start making claims about it.

Re:They certainly don't know science. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029658)

you must have been educated in LA (and I don't mean los angeles california)

Falsifiability is a very important concept to science, closely related to testability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Re:They certainly don't know science. (1, Informative)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029660)

No, he means falisfy, as in you can't disprove the opposite. Science doesn't really work on proving a hypothesis, but on disproving enough alternative hypothesis that you can be fairly sure you're close to the truth. As is my understanding, having gone to a school where we didn't have to deal with this bullshit.

Re:They certainly don't know science. (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029684)

s/falisfy/falsify/g today is not my day.

Re:They certainly don't know science. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029664)

Wrong assumption. And a telling assumption as well. Apparently you have no idea of what science is or how it works.

Re:They certainly don't know science. (4, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029666)

You never prove claims in science. You can only make an observation that confirms a hypothesis. That doesn't prove that the hypothesis is correct for at least two reasons. First, your measurements are precise only to a particular amount of precision, so you can never demonstrate that the hypothesis gives exactly correct results. Second, you can never make measurements in every conceivable set of circumstances. There may exist a set of circumstances under which the hypothesis is incorrect, such as how Netwon's laws are incorrect near the speed of light.

It's similar to the conundrum that you can never prove a program correct by testing. You can only demonstrate bugs by testing.

Re:They certainly don't know science. (5, Insightful)

samkass (174571) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029686)

I'll assume you meant there's no way to prove any of its claims. The same is true for vertical evolution.

No, he meant falsify. If we started finding fossils that suddenly changed from one type of animal to another in a single generation, or fossils where the exact same collection of species are stagnant all the way back to the beginning of time, or even where identical complex features suddenly appeared in many species separated by a wide distance simultaneously... or if we weren't able to reproduce selective breeding or specification in the lab... or if no bacteria ever developed resistance to antibiotics... or if genetic tests on existing fossils hadn't shown genetic drift tempered by survivability in an environment...

These types of observations would start to falsify the theory of evolution. The theory would have to change to accommodate them.

There is no way to falsify creationism. Any observation anyone makes can simply be explained by "God made it that way." There is no way to refute it with evidence-- it is a belief-based system that depends on supreme being instead of natural processes.

Thus, not science.

Re:They certainly don't know science. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029722)

You assume incorrectly. Reread the GP post, then a middle school science textbook to educate yourself on what science is.

Re:They certainly don't know science. (4, Insightful)

jridley (9305) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029734)

No, the basis of science is to make claims that are testable. That does not mean provable. It means falsifiable.

When an experiment in science matches the hypothesis, it doesn't "prove" something, it indicates that the hypothesis appears to be correct within the limits of the experiment. If it does not match the hypothesis, then the theory behind the hypothesis is faulty and must be revised or discarded.

Science progresses when previous theories are shown to be incorrect or incomplete, and are revised or replaced.

And experiments are also required to be reproduceable by anyone who wishes to test the theory and can recreate the experiment.

Religion does not leave any room for falsification. You can't prove a religious belief false, that's how the belief system is structured. It may be possible for an actual divine act to occur and convince people that a belief is true, but it's unlikely to be replicatable at will by skeptics who did not witness the event, and some witnesses may choose to believe another explanation than divine intervention.

Re:They certainly don't know science. (3, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029816)

There is no way to falsify any of its claims.

I'll assume you meant there's no way to prove any of its claims

That's one of the more evolved trolls that I've read here recently. Look how many bites you got - you're superbly adapted to your environment!

Re:They certainly don't know science. (5, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029772)

Actually, a lot of creationists' claims are falsifiable. They make arguments about geology, fossils, isotope dating etc. can that can be readily compared to reality. Trouble is they've all been thoroughly disproven, leading to a purely theological fallback position ("it's just made to look that way by God!") which is unfalsifiable.

Re:They certainly don't know science. (1, Flamebait)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029822)

I agree; creationism isn't science, it's philosophy. If it's taught at all it should be in classes that discuss how different cultures believe everything comes from, not science.

The trouble is, most people don't have the faintest clue what science is or how it works. And don't forget that half the population have two digit IQs.

It has all already been said (1)

quietwalker (969769) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029418)

So the only thing I have to add is a Nelson-like "Haw-Haw!"

Let them?! (5, Interesting)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029434)

I still can't get over that he said "We let them teach evolution to our children..." as though this is some sort of compromise with liberals or something...

Re:Let them?! (3, Funny)

boneclinkz (1284458) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029464)

I still can't get over that he said "We let them teach evolution to our children..." as though this is some sort of compromise with liberals or something...

But all of us here believe in creationism. And since we are all preeminent scientists in our respective fields, I think our point of view has some merit.

Re:Let them?! (2, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029520)

Don't be surprised. He suffered some serious head trauma disproving the liberal so-called "universal gravitation" before a quick-thinking doctor introduced him to the theory of intelligent falling just to get him to stop hurting himself....

Re:Let them?! (3, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029552)

I still can't get over that he said "We let them teach evolution to our children..." as though this is some sort of compromise with liberals or something...

I think they're having problems with the textbooks when they say "them." And it's not really a compromise as they pushed it into an either/or scenario. The logic of the comments in the article seemed to follow this sort of path: 1. We believe (note, not their constituents, them) in creationism so there should be a way for teachers to also teach that in the classroom 2. When children learn one thing from one adult an opposing thing from another adult, the child interprets this as confusion and sometimes exploit it to undermine authority and we already have a problem with that so 4. Only creationism or evolution should be taught to our students but 5. We probably shouldn't be deciding that at this meeting so (thank the flying spaghetti monster) we should form a committee to investigate it.

So it sounds like the resolution was to form a committee to decide if evolution or creationism should be taught in the classroom. Should be entertaining and maybe even tragic.

One of these things is not like the other ones (4, Insightful)

IICV (652597) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029442)

Act enacted last year by the Louisiana Legislature, schools can present what she termed 'critical thinking and creationism' in science classes.

One of these things is not like the other ones, one of these things is not the same.

Re:One of these things is not like the other ones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029756)

And God MADE them that way!

Re:One of these things is not like the other ones (0, Troll)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029760)

Both of them are not like the other.

I hope they *do* add this to the curriculum (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029446)

I hope they *do* add this to the curriculum, and even get their local batshit-crazy evangelical preachers to come in and teach it. Then, when the case goes to court hopefully they can personally bankrupt every single one of these school board jackoffs, and STAPLE THE FIRST FUCKING AMENDMENT TO THEIR FACES.

Re:I hope they *do* add this to the curriculum (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029582)

The first amendment? Free speech? ????

Re:I hope they *do* add this to the curriculum (3, Informative)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029786)

The first amendment? Free speech? ????

Also a few other things, such as freedom of religion.

(But cue discussion about the viability of stapling amendments to people as a constitutionally protected form of speech anyway, because it's funny.)

Re:I hope they *do* add this to the curriculum (4, Informative)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029804)

I only hope you are still in school and as such have not taken the appropriate History or Government classes that cover the first amendment. Let me give you a head start, it reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Let me give you a hint here: the FIRST TEN WORDS might be of interest to you.

Re:I hope they *do* add this to the curriculum (1)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029806)

Please go read the First Amendment. I'm begging you. It's only 45 words long, and in fact you don't have to get all the way through it. Pay particular attention to the words surrounding "establishment".

Re:I hope they *do* add this to the curriculum (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029820)

Establishment clause. [wikipedia.org]

Please tell me you are not a US voter...

Re:I hope they *do* add this to the curriculum (1)

Swarley (1795754) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029846)

Please read the first amendment before posting things like this. Seriously, it's ONE sentence.

Re:I hope they *do* add this to the curriculum (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029602)

A science class is well... a science class. It's ultimately about science. What is science? How does it work? How is it applied? How has it been applied?

These fundies are like people who see a comparative religions course and object that people are being taught what Muslims believe.

It's not a bible study class. That's not what their studying. Your personal views aren't relevant.

Do Jungians disrupt classes taught about Freud?

Ughhh... (1)

AtomicOrange (1667101) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029452)

And I've just lost faith in my home state...

Re:Ughhh... (1)

AtomicOrange (1667101) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029544)

Luckily it's only Livingston Parish.

you can teach this stuff to them... (3, Insightful)

hey (83763) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029466)

... at Sunday School.

Re:you can teach this stuff to them... (1)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029698)

trouble is, every day is sunday school in LA

Creationism is Philosophy, not Science! (5, Insightful)

cmdr_klarg (629569) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029474)

If you want to teach Creationism in school, then place the curriculum in a philosophy class, or Religion class if so desired. Keep it far, far away from Biology class.

Re:Creationism is Philosophy, not Science! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029608)

It's not even philosophy. It's demonstrably wrong, unless you essentially denying any factual evidence biologists, physicists, chemists, and geologists might bring up.

I'll grant that it's religion, but it's bad religion.

Re:Creationism is Philosophy, not Science! (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029828)

They would probably be less than happy with either of those outcomes...

As philosophy, creationism is basically just the parts of Aristotle that have held up least well, with some tacky jesus stuff pasted on. Basically just a not-very-interesting footnote to the section on teleology.

As religion, it is arguably even worse: somebody espousing creationism(especially its "intelligent design" variant, where it wears a lab coat), is doing one of two things: they have either, because of the overwhelming empirical evidence around them, accepted the scientific method; but are petulantly demanding that they be allowed to have it both ways, science; but science that says what they want to hear; or they are simply propagandizing, dressing their sectarian nonsense as "science" in order to sneak it past the establishment clause. The former group is deluded. Science will give you incredible power over, and great understanding of, nature; but it doesn't take orders. The second group is even worse. I don't remember Jesus approving very much of liars, even pious ones....

Easier Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029482)

If they are going to teach intelligent design, they should teach it at Church where it belongs.

Oblig ... (4, Funny)

krou (1027572) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029484)

Leela: It's amazing. It's like a textbook on evolution.
Fry: Except in Louisiana.

How bad could it be? (3, Funny)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029490)

Teachers should have the freedom to look at creationism and find a way to get it into the classroom.

Would secession really be such a bad option? Just because we started out united doesn't mean we have to stay that way, does it?

Re:How bad could it be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029696)

Do you really mean "secession?" Or do you mean "kick LA out of the Union before it infects the other states."

Re:How bad could it be? (1)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029834)

Threaten to send them back to the French, that'll straighten 'em out.

Spirituality is delusion. Religion is ignorance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029496)

Posting as an anonymous coward to hopefully avoid abuse from those infected by (and unable to overcome) the meme.

Re:Spirituality is delusion. Religion is ignorance (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029744)

Spirituality is an exceptionally useful practice. You can ascribe spirituality to bare consciousness, if not an external factor such as "spiritual energy" or "the soul." In that sense, being mindful of your spiritual needs (those being peace, rest, enlightenment, love, etc) is extremely beneficial.

Think about it this way: Everyone knows you need emotional support and physical rest to stay healthy, along with food and exercise. Now on top of that, consider spiritual insight through contemplative meditation, allow your mind to pick its thoughts and just observe; don't fight when unpleasantness comes up. If you follow a routine in which you meditate for say 15-20 minutes every day or half an hour 3 times a week or whatever works for you, this "spiritual" endeavor will help settle your emotions, which reduces stress, and improves the health of your physical body and the sharpness of your mind.

This is not something you can define scientifically: I can't tell you to sit in Lotus watching at a candle doing breathing exercises, and follow a set Yoga and Tai-Chi routine, and contemplate nature via listening and meditative walking, and that'll optimize your spiritual wellness. There are techniques, ideals, philosophies; you must decide on your own which to pursue. By that method, your being develops wellness from the inside out.

Consider it for a while. Unhealthy spirituality leads to things like discomfiture when faced with sexuality, or with concepts you don't want to acknowledge. In your case, I'd be willing to suggest that you experience immediate stress at the subject of spirituality and religion, and possibly anything that isn't hard and accepted science: you'd have difficulty exploring the basic meaning behind everything I've said here because it would be extremely uncomfortable for you to take in that kind of knowledge, even for simple analysis or curiosity. Perhaps due to a slight fear of discovering a usefulness that might be interpreted as a "truth" behind some of the things you find revulsion in-- maybe not proof of God, but perhaps proof that certain "spiritual" exercises do improve emotional health in ways you have difficulty explaining.

Two different branches... (2, Interesting)

SQLz (564901) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029506)

Technically, evolution and creationism are separated by about 14 billion years. If your going to teach creationism, shouldn't that be in astronomy class? What does the fact that organisms have DNA which allows them to pass on traits to their offspring have to do with the creation of the universe?

Re:Two different branches... (2, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029618)

I think you mean Astrology class, and yes, yes it should be.

Re:Two different branches... (1)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029654)

Same thing that making man from dust has to do with astronomy, I expect.

Or were you trying to be funny?

(And yes, they are trying to get Creationism into the astronomy classes as well. Biology has been their bigger target as part of their wedge strategy, though. It hits closer to home emotionally, apparently.)

Re:Two different branches... (2, Insightful)

casings (257363) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029736)

You're making an assumption that creationists believe that the world is 14 billion years old and that god only created the universe, which they don't.

Creationists believe the world is only about 6000 years old and that it was ALL created, animals, the world, at that time.

Re:Two different branches... (1)

swilver (617741) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029812)

My theory is that the world was created yesterday. I can use the same arguments as the creationists to explain it all.

Yes, please. (5, Insightful)

batquux (323697) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029512)

"you don't have to be afraid to point out some of the fallacies with the theory of evolution."

Please do. I'd like to hear them. We're waiting... all ears... go ahead... hello?

Re:Yes, please. (2, Funny)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029598)

...crickets...

Re:Yes, please. (1)

hack slash (1064002) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029742)

...distant howl of a wolf...

Re:Yes, please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029826)

...crickets...

YES! The fact that there are crickets AND grasshoppers, and that they're considered two separate things according to "science" (when they are clearly one and the same) is yet another hole in the "theory" of evolution.

Re:Yes, please. (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029784)

Evolution is indefinable. Small scale adaptations are visible and observable; but we have difficulty pointing to a moment where one thing "evolves" from another. They're not Pokémon. It's like defining "black," "dark gray," "Light gray," and "white" ... there's 1000 shades of gray.

Re:Yes, please. (2, Funny)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029810)

Allright mister science man, if we all evolved from monkeys, then why come there still monkeys?

Great more students to filter out as a Professor (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029516)

When I'm looking for graduate students and undergraduate honors students I'm looking for students who don't need a lot of training to get down to work. If I have to teach them basic science then that is too much work.

So I'll add Louisiana students to the list of high maintenance students who I generally avoid.

Your govt betrays your future by making your students less attractive in academia and industry.

HBO has a great documentary on Louisianna (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029518)

It's called "True Blood." Really interesting. I think they have some bigger issues to deal with down there, rather than evolution vs. creationism. I mean, where do vampires fit in to the debate? And werewolves? How would that evolve? Sex with wolves seems to dangerous.

Why not? Because IT'S NOT SCIENCE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029528)

On the other hand, people there don't seem to understand the scientific method, so their science curriculum can't be worth much either way.

If Creationism happened (3, Insightful)

drumcat (1659893) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029538)

...then it's God's Plan to kill everything in the Gulf, not BP.

Idiots (1, Troll)

oic0 (1864384) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029542)

I also live in Louisiana and this comes as no surprise. This is a VERY religious state. Every 100 yards you see a church, no lie! Louisiana is all about big churches, big trucks / SUVs, low IQs, and butchering the English language.

Why stop there? (3, Funny)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029546)

If I don't believe in math, why should my kids learn that two plus two equals four? That's just science brainwashing them against my belief!

The BuyBull says that Pi=3.... (1, Flamebait)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029754)

And if it's good enough for Jayzuss than it's good enough for our kids!

thus ensuring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029560)

Louisiana will remain Louisiana for another generation.

teaching ID without knowing it (4, Insightful)

peter303 (12292) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029562)

I went to a catholic school many years ago. They taught evolution with "enhancements". One was the de'Chardin theory that evolution was teleological, that is, goal-directed toward perfection. Is was their attempt to reconcile evolution and religion. This is not the precise very of evolution, which is non-teleogical, i.e. goal-less. Otherwise they pretty accepted most of regular tenants like long-time and natural selection.

Louisiana stuck in a spinlock (1)

Anthony (4077) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029564)

Waiting on the laws of physics and chemistry to change.

What. (1)

Iburnaga (1089755) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029566)

Wait wait back up. So they see nothing constitutionally wrong with teaching creationism in a public school? What?! I...I...Internet rage, it is not pretty. All joking aside, if they went ahead with this the secular and even the non secular community will have a grand ol' time tearing it all down around their ears, children shall not be indoctrinated into religion of any sort. There won't be a theocracy while the constitution stands.

I'm okay with it. (4, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029570)

As long as they also include every other creation story. There should be text from scientology, islam, hinduism, buddhism, and thousands of other creation myths from all over the world, in a separate book called "Creationism". Leave evolution in the science textbook with the theories on gravity, germ theory, and all of the other accepted, testable hypotheses.

Similarly I'm okay with religion classes, as long as the world's eight major religions are all given equal time. For some reason I think equal access to alternative theories isn't what they are really after...

Re:I'm okay with it. (1)

kanto (1851816) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029778)

Creationism doesn't actually have anything to do with religion; it's just a theistic explanation for where we all came from and, when it gets accepted, it'll start to explain what happens when the skyzombie comes back.

Hypocrisy rolled into ignorance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029586)

Board Member David Tate quickly responded: 'We let them teach evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on this School Board believe in creationism. Why can't we get someone with religious beliefs to teach creationism?' Fellow board member Clint Mitchell responded, 'I agree...you don't have to be afraid to point out some of the fallacies with the theory of evolution. Teachers should have the freedom to look at creationism and find a way to get it into the classroom.'""

Hey, at least they are trying to apply the "scientific method" to argument, though it comes off as nothing short of hypocrisy to me. I would like to have the "fallacies" that were purported to be elaborated on... Perhaps that the earth is not older than 6,000 years old and thus anything with a date slapped onto any research with anything like 1 M.Y.O. is thus "false".

Oh, please don't be "afriad to point out some of the fallacies" to eveyone...

Sure, if you can ... (1)

Trevin (570491) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029590)

Find one example of a natural process or phenomenon that creationism successfully predicts, just as countless archaeological digs have found in favor of evolution, AND if it can explain all of the geological and archaeological data that has already been found, then you can teach your theory of creationism.

That is, until some new evidence comes along which creationism can't explain. (Good luck with that.)

Re:Sure, if you can ... (1)

SQLz (564901) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029646)

Proof doesn't matter when your delusional, I mean "have faith".

Re:Sure, if you can ... (3, Funny)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029716)

just as countless archaeological digs have found in favor of evolution

I challenge you to find one. ITYM paleological.

"fallacies with the theory of evolution" (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029592)

Yeah, name one.

ID != Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029612)

I.D. is not science. I hate it when creationists insist that creation/ID gets included in science classes... do scientists insist that science be included in religion classes?

This is a bad idea (2, Insightful)

Etrigan_696 (192479) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029620)

This is a very bad idea - and that's coming from a self-described Christian. I don't want some goof-ball teacher going over something like this with my kid. They can barely get math right. You focus on math/science/history/reading, I'll handle teaching my kid religion and philosophy at home.

And as always, evolution and creation are not at odds. Evolution answers "How?" and creation answers"Why?"

I don't expect my views to be accepted by devout atheists, OR devout Catholics, so let's leave the creationism at home and not have a big fucking fight for no reason.

Re:This is a bad idea (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029704)

Personally I don't believe that Creationism and science are compatible in any way shape or form. But if you want to teach your children in this way that is fine by me.

creationism fallacies (1)

proclus (33875) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029668)

It is a funny story. This school board needs a healthy dose of creationism fallacies. How about the problem of evil, or the rock that is too heavy for God to lift? How absurd for creationists to consider the fallacies of evolution. Any discussion of creationism demands a discussion of its fallacies. Perhaps absurd thinking is an adaptation that confers some advantage. That would explain its persistence. Time will tell, no?

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ [gnu-darwin.org]

Bill Hicks (4, Funny)

hack slash (1064002) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029674)

'You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day" Yeah, looks like He rushed it.'

Damn shame he's not around today, the material he would have come up with regarding significant events in the past 16 years would have been most welcome.

"Critical thinking and creationism" (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029710)

Presumably presented in a class on paired opposites.

I'm ok with that (1)

kikito (971480) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029718)

But they will also have to include creationism on the math, PE, language, history and foreign languages curriculum. And on the musical studies.

intelligent design is real (2, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029728)

it is what human beings do when they engage in the genetic engineering of the dna of other creatures (or of homo sapiens)

the way creationists propose that god designed us is something that will be in the realm of the ability of human beings within a century. and if us lowly imperfect human beings have the powers of god, that says one of two things:

1. we have become gods

2. your understanding of what god is and how god works is wrong

Michael Behe is at the root of their advantage. (1)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029746)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe [wikipedia.org]

There is a huge gap between intelligent design and evolution, and poor Mr. Behe has managed to fill that gap in a way that has given the intelligent design folk some major leverage.

He needs to either come out and refute claims that his work = proof of God, and discredit those who make such claims (while admiting his theories need more work), or come out and just confess he is acting on behalf of the Bible so that even the pseudo scientists are forced discredit him once and for all.

That would be doing all of us a favor.

I don't believe his theory of irreducible complexity equates to God created life, and on the surface it appears that he doesn't either. He simply points out that he finds some systems to be too sophisticated to be random, and *appears* to be a *scientist* while making his points.

Most if not all intelligent design advocates have jumped on this, and it is really too bad, because it's working. And I say whether he likes it or not, he could very well be responsible for the miseducation of millions of children.

What’s the alternative? (2, Funny)

TrumpetPower! (190615) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029752)

(Never mind, of course, that the courts will shoot this Louisianan idiocy down in a heartbeat.)

On the one hand, we have the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, a scientific theory backed by a volume of evidence more diverse and massive than that assembled in support of any other theory.

On the other hand...we have a faery tale.

No, really.

Cdesign proponentsists would have us instead accept a “theory” drawn solely on the proposition that the Bible is substantially true.

And the Bible opens with a story — the very one they’d replace science with — about a magic garden with talking animals and an angry giant.

Worse, it continues in exactly that same vein. It prominently features a talking shrubbery (on fire, no less!) that instructs the reluctant hero how to wield his magic wand. It has more talking animals, sea monsters, lots more giants, and an endless string of magic spells. There’s even a dragon in there, and I think there might be a unicorn, too. At the end we have an utterly bizarre zombie fantasy, complete with one of the thralls groping the zombie king’s intestines. And the grand finale? Global zombie apocalypse.

All y’all who dismiss science in favor of fantasy? This is why we laugh at you.

Cheers,

b&

Haven't these people heard of Sunday School? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029762)

It's a place where Christians send their kids to learn about their religion. If they just educated their frickin kids in church, they wouldn't need to pollute the public school system.

Intelligent design is against my religion (4, Interesting)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029776)

The premise of intelligent design is that God wasn't able to create a universe in which everything happened automatically. instead, it argues that He created the universe, and then had to constantly meddle because He couldn't get the animals He wanted by following the physical laws that He, Himself, made. This is utterly against my religion's conception of God, in which He does not make such mistakes.

My religion is, I think, a fairly popular one called 'Christianity', and I fail to see why whatever minority religious group is pushing 'intelligent design' should be able to teach Christian children that God is fallible and makes mistakes that He then has to correct.

Surely a better compromise between our two religions would be to simply not talk about what God did or didn't do at all in public schools.

Not surprising (1)

Warshadow (132109) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029798)

Having lived in Louisiana this doesn't surprise me at all. You couldn't go a quarter-mile in most areas without seeing a church.

I thought the Scopes trial was over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33029830)

John Scopes must be rolling in his grave.
For those of you who don't remember: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

And this is why Federalism is so important (1)

HundyCougar (732944) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029836)

By remanding powers to the states that which is not in the constitution, it allows the states the right setup their own education systems. Don't believe in creationism/intelligent design? If you can't affect the local government, you can always move to a state that supports such beliefs. It was one of the things that made the country great. We didn't use to be this homogeneous mixture of sameness. There were radically different beliefs across aspectrum of ideas that were delineated by state borders. People of certain beliefs were able to affect the government policy that mattered locally. Now everything has to be the same...

Teach it in a theology or philosophy class (1)

Guysmiley777 (880063) | more than 4 years ago | (#33029840)

But keep it the hell out of science classes because intelligent design is just re-worded creationism and is NOT SCIENCE.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>