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!

Scientists Take Charles Darwin On the Road

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the zombie-darwin-needs-brains dept.

Education 170

Hugh Pickens writes "A team of evolutionary scientists recently traveled to the heart of America, visiting rural schools and communities in Nebraska, Montana, and Virginia to share their excitement about science on the birthday of Charles Darwin, and were overwhelmed with the graciousness, enthusiasm and sincerity of the teachers, school administration and particularly the students that hosted them. 'Over the course of our visits, the questions we received from students were thoughtful and founded in sheer curiosity about the science we presented,' writes MacClain. 'Indeed, the questions were the most exciting part of our collective visits.' Another purpose of the trip was to introduce people to the diverse types of research scientists do, open students' minds to the possibilities of careers in science, and offer an alternative to stereotypes of science and scientists in general. Some criticize the Darwin Day Road Show for being nothing more than a 'Darwinist ministry,' others for it not being more explicit in its discussion of evolution and Darwin, but with this year's success, there will be a Darwin Day Road Show 2012 and the National Center for Science Education is planning to hit all 50 states by 2015. MacClain says the team has found a middle ground that allows scientists to stop communicating at and start communicating with the public. 'It reminds us all that interactions between science and society need not be contentious. At its heart, science is about questions, and we all naturally ask them.'"

cancel ×

170 comments

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

Die Hard (-1, Redundant)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206144)

MacClain says the team has found a middle ground that allows scientists to stop communicating at and start communicating with the public.

McClaaaaaaaaaaane!

Re:Die Hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206580)

Yippee-ki-yay, intelligent design motherfuckers!

sounds super (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206158)

Sounds like it was a scientific carnival. Was there a pool where you could throw a ball at a target to drop a scientist and get schooled on the physics behind all of it with a slow-motion replay? That would be pretty cool. brb going to question reality again.

Re:sounds super (2)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206400)

"Sounds like it was a scientific carnival. "

A boring one. Also did you notice they were going to universities? FTA:
"The day before we rolled into Grant, Yanega and I visited the University of Nebraska at Kearney, where we met with undergraduates and lectured to both university and public audiences."

Really? They needed to teach evolution at universities too? I mean I can understand some little backwards high school somewhere believing creationism, but universities need help too?

Repentant!!!! (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206160)

Little do these "sientists" know that but TODAY IS JUDGEMENT DAY and th LORD shaekk shmitete the wicked people WHOTH do not salute LUXEMBOURG! LUXEMBOURG THE greates tfreeest nation on GOD's earth so SUCK IT FRANCE!

Re:Repentant!!!! (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206276)

I guess you didn't get the memo, He's got invited to a golf game with Xenu and the Holy Trinity last minute and had to cancel that other thing.

Re:Repentant!!!! (1)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206626)

and the Holy Trinity

He's playing golf with himself? WTF?

Re:Repentant!!!! (1)

ComaVN (325750) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207124)

you're surprised at what a guy who's his own father can do? really?

Re:Repentant!!!! (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207086)

Never mind. Same time tomorrow? [youtube.com]

another sequel? (1)

PhreakOfTime (588141) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206166)

So. Who else clicked on the article to see if the guys name was 'John'?

Darwin is wrong (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206170)

I agree with the creationists -- Darwin is wrong. Going around the country, shaking the plaster bust of a guy who is peddling theories that are long rejected by modern science as mostly guesswork is totally counter-productive.

Darwin's theory had its place in the XIX century, when biology was a backwater field designed for heterosexual people on a man-only ship crew. But these days to keep regurgitating the theory that we've originated from the monkeys is just ridiculous.

Also, the US students are enthusiastic about everything - for about 3 minutes, until their attention span is overloaded. Except for the juicier jailbites, who may last longer in some situations.

Re:Darwin is wrong (4, Insightful)

siddesu (698447) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206182)

Darwin is "wrong" about evolution in the same way Isaac Newton is "wrong" about physics, you stupid troll.

Re:Darwin is wrong (1)

Gorobei (127755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206326)

Troll, but not stupid.

"when biology was a backwater field designed for heterosexual people on a man-only ship crew" is actually a pretty funny lure.

Re:Darwin is wrong (-1, Troll)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207378)

So where are all the intermediate stages of evolution. I want to see the half man half monkeys that I evolved from (Que the jokes). Sure evolution is evident with bacteria, and other small creatures, but with larger organisms there is a gap in my knowledge of evolution. Could someone please fill me in. Were millions of tiny genetic mutations that selectively transformed me from a monkey to the pale sickly creature that I am today, and these intermediate stages of evolution were so unsuccessful that they did not leave a fossil record? Or was there one giant mutation that a that transformed people from apes. Unless the mutation took place in both male and female at the same time, It would seem that you have to have the ability of the mutated organisms to mate with the pure strains of the organisms if evolution were to work. That would seem to mean that you would have to have half men half apes mating with apes / people. Wouldn't that leave a record?

I think one reason people still believe in intelligent design, is due to questions like this that seem to get short thrift in the mainstream press.

-Also is the Shih Tzu (an animal much to stupid to have ever survived on it's own and in the wild) an example of evolution or intelligent design. Meaning is it evidence that evolution works because people are breeding dogs essentially for cuteness, and hence you have a really cute, but really stupid dog, or is it evidence of intelligent design? People essentially designed these white and black balls of fluffiness through a selective breeding program.

Re:Darwin is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36207498)

So where are all the intermediate stages of evolution.

Mostly dead. That's how it works.

Que the jokes

I prefer New Riders myself.

Re:Darwin is wrong (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206202)

But these days to keep regurgitating the theory that we've originated from the monkeys is just ridiculous.

The monkeys don't want to acknowledge that they share a common ancestor with you either.

Re:Darwin is wrong (1, Insightful)

Dr.Bob,DC (2076168) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206242)

You're so wrong. Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection is the foundation for modern biology. Without it, virtually everything we know about speciation would be tossed in the bin.

There's still so much more to learn. For example, why are vertebral subluxations which cause human health issues so hard to detect outside of the speciality of Chiropractic? Surely these evolved as our species started to walk upright on our hind legs. Other mammals don't suffer from subluxations (though there are some who say otherwise).

It's interesting that as our species has advanced, the primary cause of our ill health has evolved right along with us. I've tried to gather up support among my fellows for research into this but have run across a few hurdles. Namely that "scientists" don't take the very real issue of vertebral subluxations seriously and don't want to spend time on this.

Of course this is because they're all in the pockets of Big Pharma. But that's a matter for another day.

To sum it up: Darwin was right, you are wrong.

Re:Darwin is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206646)

(Score:-1, Insightful)

How the fuck does this even happen?

Re:Darwin is wrong (0)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206686)

Three (it would be four if the good doctor had good karma, but alas, he is but a unappreciated parodist pointing out the unscientific nature of chiropractic and alternative 'medicine') overrateds and an insightful mod.

Let's see if we can get this post to +5 troll! Everyone mod me underrated until I am +5 and then someone mod me troll!

Also, in case you are wondering why you don't get points for a while after you mod everyone you disagree with as flamebait, that is because you are contradicted in metamoderation, it hurts your karma, consider modding the dissenters as 'overrated' instead, as it will not hurt it at all.

Re:Darwin is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36207462)

Underrated and overrated -- two rubbish bits of the moderation system, no doubt about it. Then again, it doesn't really matter except in the larger commented stories. For instance, that spinal injury story yesterday -- the doctor's thread dominated the story in replies, and he started at -1.

Re:Darwin is wrong (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206266)

What a ludicrous and false statement. Darwin's theory was incomplete, but as Stephen Jay Gould, in the large picture it was pretty spot on. Darwin lacked a theory of heredity, to be sure, but then again modern physics lacks a demonstrable quantum theory of gravity. By your tortured logic, that would make QM and GR wrong.

What I think is that you're just a fucking moron who makes grand proclamations like this, but, in fact you're just an ignoramus.

Re:Darwin is wrong (2)

gmrath (751453) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207322)

No, not a moron. Calling him a moron gives him too much credit. He is, in fact, a "lesson."

Re:Darwin is wrong (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206388)

Darwin never said we originated from monkeys

Evolutionary scientists?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206174)

Can a scientist be not "evolutionary"? Can you be an "creationist scientist"? Is creationism even considered "science"?

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (2)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206220)

Creationism really isn't science because it cannot be disproven. That's the fundamental flaw of the field and why you could, theoretically, be a creationist and a scientist, but not a creationist scientist.

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (2)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206268)

Don't forget the court case where even the judge determined that creationism is NOT science.
(If you're really interested, you can google it and dig through the mass of false hits.)

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (4, Interesting)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206292)

Not only the law, but the Catholic Church itself says so.

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206470)

I forgot about that, thanks for the reminder :)

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206230)

Can a scientist be not "evolutionary"? Can you be an "creationist scientist"? Is creationism even considered "science"?

1. Yes, but they're very unlikely to be correct.
2. Yes, you can be a walking oxymoron.
3. No, "god did it" is a bald assertion.

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (4, Insightful)

LambdaWolf (1561517) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206248)

Can a scientist be not "evolutionary"? Can you be an "creationist scientist"? Is creationism even considered "science"?

I interpret "evolutionary scientist" as a scientist specializing in evolutionary biology. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206302)

Biology is a rather soft science though - is it even a science at all when compared to rigorous subjects like physics and chemistry?

Welcome to the 21st century (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206362)

Yes, Biology is hard science. I recommend reading 'Your Inner Fish' to understand why. Evolution - as a good scientific theory - is able to make predictions. Based on those Tiktaalik was found. What is Tiktaalik? Well, Google it and be amazed.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206778)

Evolution - as a good scientific theory - is able to make predictions. Based on those Tiktaalik was found. What is Tiktaalik? Well, Google it and be amazed.

I Googled it. Tiktaalik was found because Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, and Professor Farish A. Jenkins, Jr were digging around in the shale. It wasn't found because of any evolutionary theory. It doesn't do science any favours to make false claims about it.

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206396)

Biology is a rather soft science though - is it even a science at all when compared to rigorous subjects like physics and chemistry?

Oh come on. Maybe 60 years ago Biology was a "soft science". I can assure that in the modern world it's very far from a "soft science". Biology is just as rigorous as physics and chemistry.

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (2)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207988)

"Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting."

-- Ernest Rutherford

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (2)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206294)

Physics and chemistry didn't evolve; they sprang into existence fully formed. (Mankind's understanding of them is continually advancing, but the necessary formulas haven't changed since the Big Bang.) Hell, if you want to count computer scientists as scientists, they work pretty exclusively in the realm of things that were intelligently designed by teams of intelligent designers. (That is, microchips and compilers and languages and so forth.)

As it was used in the article, "evolutionary scientist" means "biologist" or possibly "evolutionary biologist."

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206614)

Hell, if you want to count computer scientists as scientists, they work pretty exclusively in the realm of things that were intelligently designed by teams of intelligent designers. (That is, microchips and compilers and languages and so forth.)

It is an absolute unrelated coincidence if a computer scientist ever discovers they are near or using a computer. Computer Science has nothing at all to do with computers. Computer Science is a merely a subset of Mathematics, and everyone knows mathematics isn't science (or the common phrase "math and science" would be redundant) and never had a first chance to pop into existence like physics or chemistry. Mathematics was there long, long, long before any tedious sequence of Big Bangs and Big Crunches.

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207016)

It is an absolute unrelated coincidence if a computer scientist ever discovers they are near or using a computer.

Depends on the field. Your references to mathematics seems to indicate that you equate "computer science" with theoretical computer science, such as computational complexity theory. However, other specializations rely on computers very much, such as operating systems (which uses lots of simulation) and machine learning (which is inherently experimental, though some theory does exist).

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206656)

Physics and chemistry didn't evolve; they sprang into existence fully formed. (Mankind's understanding of them is continually advancing, but the necessary formulas haven't changed since the Big Bang.)

Oops -- there were no "formulas" around until we thinking beings discovered a way to describe the interactions we were seeing. Physics and chemistry did evolve as we had to create and refine them, in reality there is no such thing as chemistry or physics -- these are just mental tools we have created to help us predict future events... it is not really how things happen, even if the happenings appear similar to our predictions, it is only because we choose to classify them as such.

There were clearly things happening long before we happened, and there will never be a precise or fast enough tool to completely and accurately predict any event since a fully described "formula" for complete accurate prediction of events would also include the process by which it is currently being described and evaluated -- the description of which affects the description itself, infinitely.

Only thinking beings try to predict what will happen -- colliding asteroids don't do predictions -- the universe has no need for such a thing: Shit Happens the way it is happening and that's the universe's take on the whole situation.

Science hasn't been around forever, it takes a rational thinking mind to apply the Scientific method -- thus, unless you believe the universe thinks for itself, we brought science to our corner of the Universe. We discovered the relations between the concept of numbers and units and created Math. The universe has no need for numbers -- "How many apples will there be if I eat one of your three?" At the fundamental level this has no real meaning, there is no "apple" -- that is a classification that humans invented for that instance of particularly classified space/time and energy state -- Apples and Oranges and Orangutans are the same things to the universe -- this bunch of twists and knots of space/time energy waves interacts with that bunch over there the way they will, and they have, and are about to some more. The universe becomes the result of me eating the apple, and were I not going to have eaten it, it would have become the state of you having the same you already had.

The very existence of the universe is like the wake of a pebble in a pond. Unaware that it is propagating and ultimately its wave energy is normalizing, it is what it is, and nothing more -- The Universe is so very much like this -- the waves/energies produced by the big bang are just a bit more complex than the wake of the pebble, but the principal is the same. We are part of this energy conversion and fluctuation process -- the pebble's waves reflect upon themselves and realize, "Ooh, isn't all this neat?", and then we are gone, taking our classification systems and prediction tools with us.

The universe does not say, these two groups of space/time energy shall act like "apples", it has no concept of "similarity", it can not differentiate any matter from any other matter, and it treats all parts of itself the same. Some of what we call matter seems to act differently than other classifications we have made of matter, but to the universe it is all the same. All energy and space/time combinations are unique from any other -- We may recognize that some matter and set of potential energies (circumstances) are similar to some other event, but not the Universe. We may classify and attempt to make predictions based on prior events, but the Universe does not.

Thus: A Computer Scientist, is just a more precise classification of Scientist that we have created. Scientists that study primarily Evolution, could then be called Evolutionary Scientists, even though they are Biologists, for the same reason a Scientist studying primarily Applied Computerized Mathematics could be called a Computer Scientist even though they are also Mathematicians.

In a way we are the universe, giving meaning to our own existence, and by proxy the whole of all -- this is the purpose of life, for this is what life does.

TL;DR: Just got back from the bar -- some people, (like my girlfriend), get wasted and pass out, others, like me, should have!

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206722)

Hell, if you want to count computer scientists as scientists, they work pretty exclusively in the realm of things that were intelligently designed by teams of intelligent designers. (That is, microchips and compilers and languages and so forth.)

Except for C++, which started mutating randomly and growing uncontrollably from a C preprocessor written by Bjarne Stroustrup.

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206386)

? Can you be an "creationist scientist"?

Sure. You could be a creationist physicist, say. Just as long as your work had nothing to do with biology. Your colleagues would probably have a hard time taking you seriously though.

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207032)

? Can you be an "creationist scientist"?

Sure. You could be a creationist physicist, say. Just as long as your work had nothing to do with biology. Your colleagues would probably have a hard time taking you seriously though.

I deal with a number of scientists/professionals of various flavors, including a computer scientist who is almost certainly a creationist. But his computer science does get taken seriously, presumably because he doesn't try to mix proselyting with his research and teaching.

I've got no problem with someone holding religious beliefs, so long as they don't insist on them as the basis for public policy, or insist on using public institutions and tax money for proselytizing, and so long as the beliefs don't make them behave badly.

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36207584)

You could be a creationist physicist, say. Just as long as your work had nothing to do with biology. Your colleagues would probably have a hard time taking you seriously though.

I deal with a number of scientists/professionals of various flavors, including a computer scientist who is almost certainly a creationist. But his computer science does get taken seriously

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (2)

LongearedBat (1665481) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206402)

Can you be an "creationist scientist"?

No, for creationism.Yes, for "intelligent design", meaning that one accepts evolution, but sees it as a tool used by god to tweak and direct evolution.

Is creationism even considered "science"?

No, because scientific method has not been applied. It's based on blind faith which is the inverse of science.

If you want people to pay attention to what you're saying, then the first thing to avoid doing is to avoid offending them. Religious people tend to get quite offended when you dismiss their religion.

So, the trick, or "middle ground", is to not talk away their faith, but rather to play along with it. Intelligent design is a good middle ground, because it allows for both evolution and godliness. So you can actually start some sort of dialog (which is better than none).

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206482)

Intelligent Design IS creationism with a global search and replace god with intelligent design.
Those boobs that put out the paper for I.D. screwed up and didn't erase the metadata, so people dug into the edits and discovered that little gem.
(A couple of times a year some group or another forgets about metadata, and the adobe stuff has a purge metadata function in it's menu... morons.)

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (1)

LongearedBat (1665481) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206512)

I thought that creationism is "Poof, there's a universe", as compared to intelligent design that doesn't actually refute scientific findings (even accepting that it's billions of years old), but ascribes all the wonderous things we see to sky daddy's imagination.

That makes two very different ideas. The first is pure fairy tale, the other is closer to science fiction.

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206876)

As the used to say on talk.origins, intelligent design is creationism with the serial number filed off.

Or creationism dressed up in a lab coat.

It has no purpose but to make the world safe for creationism, first, by filing the serial number off in hopes that the courts wouldn't recognize it for what it is, and second by putting it in a lab coat and casting it in big words, so that people who are eager to have their mythology validated can congratulate themselves that the boffins discovered that they were right all along.

On both those counts, it represents the ultimate surrender of creationism.

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (1)

slackzilly (2033012) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207930)

Creationism: Poof, there's a universe.
Intelligent design: Bang, there's a universe.

In the beginning, there was nothing. Then one day nothing exploded and so the universe was born.

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207050)

Intelligent Design IS creationism with a global search and replace god with intelligent design.
Those boobs that put out the paper for I.D. screwed up and didn't erase the metadata, so people dug into the edits and discovered that little gem.

To be more specific, it was a textbook (or draft, IIRC) that was revised to replace "creationism" with "intelligent design" right after the US Supreme Court ruled against creationism in public schools. But they did a sloppy job with the find-and-replace, which is why you get about 10,000 Google hits for the unlikely phrase "cdesign proponentsists" and various nearby misspellings. (I don't know what the actual spelling was.)

That revelation was the poleaxe that killed ID as a mechanism for sneaking creationism past the courts. You don't hear near as much about ID anymore, since that was the reason it was invented. Still got a lot of dead-enders clinging to it to validate their belief that creationism is "scientific", though.

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206756)

Religious people tend to get quite offended when you dismiss their religion.

So, should I get offended because many (but not all) religious people dismiss my atheism? Of course, I don't get offended, because their viewpoint is rooted in a fantasy, utterly divorced from tangible reality. Instead, I try to be be accommodative of their beliefs and don't push my own (neither do I pretend not to be atheist). Is it too much to ask for some reciprocal consideration?

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36207408)

their viewpoint is rooted in a fantasy, utterly divorced from tangible reality. Instead, I try to be be accommodative of their beliefs and don't push my own

Hmm, spot the difference between those two sentences...

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207602)

OK. The first one is an opinion about something, whereas the second describes the writer's action, or rather his refraining from it.

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206772)

Can a scientist be not "evolutionary"?

Yes. As far as I can see it refers to a specialism, not a position on the issue. And anyway, a physicist for example could -- at least in theory -- decline to take a position on evolution on the grounds that it's outside their field and they didn't believe that they'd considered the issue in sufficient detail.

Re:Evolutionary scientists?? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206994)

Is creationism even considered "science"?

Supposedly the "creation science" movement of the 1980s was a genuine attempt at science-based creationism. Of course, science is ruled by the evidence, so it couldn't stay both creationism and science very long.

Sounds like a good thing... (1, Insightful)

rogerdugans (902614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206262)

Anything that helps put creationism back in its place- as a fairy story told to and by those who have a hard time with the scientific process...
Or anything much more advanced than 2+2 (which equals 4 for any Creationists reading this.)

Getting kids excited about actual science and rational though processes is a good thing. And needed to help counter what some "people" (note the loose use of the term) try to pass off as science- creationism, "Intelligent Design" and the Flat Earth Society.

Hell, maybe they can get some adults interested in rational thought too!

Re:Sounds like a good thing... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206492)

Wow damn, I didn't know that believing in God made it impossible to understand math like 2+2, thank you SO much for clarifying for it, here I thought it would equal 29.

By golly I wish i was as smart as you mr rogers!

Re:Sounds like a good thing... (1)

mjhacker (922395) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206542)

Being a theist does not equal being a creationist. Not everyone who believes in a deity is an ID proponent.

Re:Sounds like a good thing... (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206700)

"Being a theist does not equal being a creationist."

But most theists believe in things which they derived from writings of men, the mistakes therein which science shows are demonstrably not true. The source of most peoples theistic beliefs are not credible at all.

Theism is derived from the writings of ancient ignorant peoples. The idea that we can take seriously people's theism the majority of which is based on writings of ancient human beings in pre-scientific and pre-literate times is still ludicrous.

Re:Sounds like a good thing... (1)

mjhacker (922395) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206742)

I'm in agreement. I was just pointing out to the person who threw a little god tantrum that bashing creationists is not necessarily the same as bashing the religious. The line is fuzzy, to be sure, but it's there.

Pi = 3. 2 = 2 pi/3. 2 pi/3 + 2 pi/3 = 4 pi/3. (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207686)

I didn't know that believing in God made it impossible to understand math like 2+2

Anybody knows the answer is roughly 4.1888.

Re:Sounds like a good thing... (1)

rogerdugans (902614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207872)

Nowhere did I say that believing in God, a God or even many Gods made it impossible to understand math.
There have been and are now many people who are both religious and intelligent.

Creationists are another matter entirely.
They are a completely different discussion.

Re:Sounds like a good thing... (1)

jandersen (462034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206554)

I think what this story really illustrates is that young people are not stupid, and they hate being told lies. Creationism is so obviously implausible that you can only believe it if you force your eyes shut and work hard at staying ignorant.

Science - and the theory of evolution as part of it - is so obviously driven by a sincere wish to find the truth; science respects the intelligence of the audience by saying "these are the facts and this is what we think explains them - what do you think?". If creationists were right - and sincere - they would say the same and trust that other people would reach the same conclusion.

Re:Sounds like a good thing... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206884)

Creationism is so obviously implausible that you can only believe it if you force your eyes shut and work hard at staying ignorant.

That's why creationists are so desperate to keep their kids from hearing about reality in school, and have a propensity for home schooling when they can't control the curriculum.

I don't think it matters... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206366)

The religous nuts run the place.

Religous nuts scare me... They'll be the end of the country.

Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 times! (2, Interesting)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206384)

Seriously, I know it may sound a bit selfish, but here in Texas is where the curriculum of much of the nation is decided due to our huge purchasing power of school books. The publishers do not bend to the will of the smaller states as readily, and they must buy the books that are available from these publishers (personally, give me reprints from the 50s -- they're not nearly as dumbed down). California gets it, last I heard they were banning books that had the Texas curriculum in them.

The problem is that here in Texas religious zealots are pushing to get "intelligent design" taught instead of the Science of evolution; Currently I.D. is being pushed as an alternative, with the hope that teachers can be found that will only want to teach one alternative -- I.D.

The children will not learn without exposure to the scientific information -- I used only MS OSs since MS DOS 3.1 because I did not know about Linux! No one was there to teach me that I had other options than MacOS or Windows.

Texas is the battleground that must be won to keep evolution in many schools across the country.

A huge problem is that many true I.D. believers can not be reasoned with, many are irrational and have no concept of science.

I once showed one of these fundamentalists a well known experiment I was running where each generation of mouse, at 4 weeks old (the brink of maturity for this breed), I put through a chute and if the mouse's tail got caught by the small rear sliding door, I would remove that mouse from the gene pool into a separate habitat. Each generation I shortened the measuring cell's length a bit.

I pointed to the mice in the two different environments and said: "You see -- These mice with the long tails came from the same parents as these mice over here with no tails. Because of the chute's environmental pressure, the mice evolved to be a tailless breed. It was more genetically advantageous for mature mice to have shorter tails here, while there the mice were under no such constraint.

Their response was that I was the intelligent designer -- I argued that it was only a demonstration, if one intelligently imposed environmental pressure could cause a change in the species, then other natural environmental pressures could also have effects that change a species.

They said, "God would be providing such natural pressures." -- I said, "Eureka! So, you agree -- Evolution exists, and may be the very tool your God used to make the variety of species, and that He was smart enough to give his creatures adaptability so they could survive environmental changes!"

They replied: "That is not what The Bible says, and therefore, that is not the truth. I still don't see why your theory of evolution should be taught in schools." I replied, "For the same reason we teach the theory of gravity!", and walked away.

You can't win a logical argument with a fundamentalist -- even if they agree with you, they still disagree on principal.

I hope that the they are just warming up with the "Darwin Day Road Show", so it doesn't seem like an attack at the very heart of the issue, but this is what must happen. Please come to Texas!

P.S. Teach religion in school, fine I don't care -- but just don't remove the Science!

TL;DR: Phhcht -- Houston, we have a fucking problem! We're screwing ourselves out of reasonable people; Over.

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206560)

Now that's funny - isn't it against political correctness to say that one point of view is right and another is wrong? Aren't we supposed to respect the views of all cultures and not judge others? What happened here to make all this hatred socially acceptable?

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (1)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206612)

P.C. is about respecting the subjective opinions and beliefs of others. A science class should be based on observed facts only unless it's made clear what is an unproven hypothesis.

I have no problem with someone taking a class which offers the view that life is intelligently designed [presenting opinion as opinion]. I have no problem with the details of natural selection and speciation being taught [presenting fact as fact]. I have a problem with intelligent design being presented as a definite fact [presenting opinion as fact]. I have a problem with the origins of life being taught as necessarily independent of an intelligent creator [presenting opinion as fact].

The latter, I'm sure, will inflame many people on this site, but as I know of no observation of life arising where none had been before it remains a hypothesis.

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206824)

Except around women. Then, politically correct is about agreeing that rape isn't about sex.

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (1)

Singularity42 (1658297) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206632)

No, you have it all wrong. Heterosexuality is immoral and evil. Because it led to you.

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206934)

"...one point of view is right and another is wrong? ....all this hatred..."

In case you don't mean that as a funny: how is it that saying a point of view is wrong, amounts to hatred?

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207066)

Now that's funny - isn't it against political correctness to say that one point of view is right and another is wrong?

And Slashdot is the internet's bastion of political correctness, right?

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206606)

I said, "Eureka! So, you agree -- Evolution exists, and may be the very tool your God used to make the variety of species, and that He was smart enough to give his creatures adaptability so they could survive environmental changes!"

I could be wrong, but isn't this exactly the idea of intelligent design?

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (1)

Liam Pomfret (1737150) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206698)

Nope, it's theistic evolution. Both viewpoints essentially say that "god created the universe", however intelligent design goes a step further in claiming that "life was created (by god but we won't use that word) and hasn't changed". while theistic evolution is more "god designed the laws that govern life, the universe and everything, and thus the process of evolution is part of his/her/its unknowable grand plan, with god having set off in some way the chain of events which led to the eventual creation of life".

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (1)

mbeckman (645148) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206668)

Vortex, Your experiment is a very poor design, fatally flawed. What is your controlled source for mutations? As far as I can see, you have none. Thus this is not an experiment demonstrating evolution, which would require a source of beneficial mutations. You are simply redistributing existing genetic traits in descendant populations. This is nothing more than selective breeding, such as Man has done for millennia. In reality, evolutionary "science" will never actually be a branch of science until we have the ability to conduct experiments testing Darwin's key hypothesis: that RANDOM MUTATIONS provide beneficial variations upon which natural selection can act. That appears to be dozens, if not hundreds, of yeas off.

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206932)

Vortex, Your experiment is a very poor design, fatally flawed. What is your controlled source for mutations? As far as I can see, you have none. Thus this is not an experiment demonstrating evolution, which would require a source of beneficial mutations. You are simply redistributing existing genetic traits in descendant populations. This is nothing more than selective breeding, such as Man has done for millennia.

Bingo. Darwin figured out a century and a half ago that evolution *is* just selective breeding.

In reality, evolutionary "science" will never actually be a branch of science until we have the ability to conduct experiments testing Darwin's key hypothesis: that RANDOM MUTATIONS provide beneficial variations upon which natural selection can act. That appears to be dozens, if not hundreds, of yeas off.

If it's random, you'd expect some to be good and some to be bad.

I suspect that the better something is adapted to its environment, the less likely a mutation will be good - just a simple statistical matter of having to beat something that's already better than purely random. But environments change, or populations move into new environments, and suddenly they aren't as optimized as they were before, so the odds of a random mutation being beneficial improves.

Also, you seem to be operating under the assumption that beneficial mutations haven't been observed in nature and in the petri dish. There have been cases where we can see *exactly* what mutation gave rise to resistance to our antibiotics or pesticides.

For the casual reader, there was an example of the latter in the May Scientific American, in the article about superweeds.

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207552)

"Darwin figured out a century and a half ago that evolution *is* just selective breeding."

No, according to evolutionary biologists these days

See
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-means.asp [answersingenesis.org]

You may not agree but give it a fair read

"And Gould is far from an isolated example. Back in October of 1980, the world’s leading evolutionists met in Chicago for a conference summarized popularly by Adler and Carey in Newsweek18 and professionally by Lewin in Science19 According to the professional summary,
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro-evolution.
That is, the processes of mutation, selection, and sexual recombination all produce variation within kind (microevolution—or creationist adaptation), but can these processes be logically extended (extrapolated) to explain the presumed evolutionary change generally from simpler to more complex types (macroevolution)?
At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (1)

Masterofpsi (1643965) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206960)

Ever heard of nylonase [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36207528)

Yes. Nylonase-generating organisms are merely speculated to have evolved a gene change via a beneficial mutation. None has been observed:

"There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation."

The mutation has not been observed through gene sequencing before- and after-mutation populations, nor a mutagen identified. Indeed, until sequencing is perhaps a milllon times faster than today, such observation is virtually impossible. Eventually it will be possible to conduct such experiments. Not today.

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (1)

Marurun (1938210) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206720)

They said, "God would be providing such natural pressures." -- I said, "Eureka! So, you agree -- Evolution exists, and may be the very tool your God used to make the variety of species, and that He was smart enough to give his creatures adaptability so they could survive environmental changes!"

That is kinda the idea behind I.D. If all the variants for survival are already in the species' genetic coding they would adapt to their surroundings to survive based on what they're eating, what sort of terrain they have to deal with, what climate it is, etc. and the offspring eventually take on those qualities. It's like breeding dogs and cats for their specific traits or growing crops to gain a different flavor or quality to them. It's not like saying a frog will evolve into a bird or something.

I believe the main complaint the fundamentalists have is that evolution teaches that everything came from a theory that says the world started from a single cell that advanced its lifecycle to become more and more creatures until humans eventually came about. It is a theory, but so is I.D. according to many people as well. Better things could be done if people would stop trying to argue over where we came from or how all the different species were formed during the big bang or whichever idea is popular now.

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206950)

No, ID isn't a theory. It's a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the facts. Behe's "irreducible complexity" only shows that he doesn't understand evolution at the layman level (or perhaps that he does, and is merely being dishonest about it -- pick your poison). Dembski's bullshit about "specified complexity" and "no free lunch" is just that: bullshit. A crapload of misrepresentations to produce a number that lets him say "I can't believe that happened without God's help!".

Evolution, OTOH, is supported by craploads of evidence. Paleontological evidence. Genetic evidence. Behavioral evidence. Biogeographical evidence. A crapload of stuff few creationists even know exists.

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (3, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207164)

Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 times!..
. . . .
The problem is that here in Texas religious zealots are pushing to get "intelligent design" taught instead of the Science of evolution; Currently I.D. is being pushed as an alternative, with the hope that teachers can be found that will only want to teach one alternative -- I.D.

The children will not learn without exposure to the scientific information -- I used only MS OSs since MS DOS 3.1 because I did not know about Linux! No one was there to teach me that I had other options than MacOS or Windows.

This is either hysterical nonsense, or a troll. Texas Science education standards [state.tx.us] require the teaching of evolution [state.tx.us] .

(b) Introduction.

(1) In Biology, students conduct field and laboratory investigations, use scientific methods during investigations, and make informed decisions using critical-thinking and scientific problem-solving. Students in Biology study a variety of topics that include: structures and functions of cells and viruses; growth and development of organisms; cells, tissues, and organs; nucleic acids and genetics; biological evolution; taxonomy; metabolism and energy transfers in living organisms; living systems; homeostasis; ecosystems; and plants and the environment.

(2) Science is a way of learning about the natural world. Students should know how science has built a vast body of changing and increasing knowledge described by physical, mathematical, and conceptual models, and also should know that science may not answer all questions.

(3) A system is a collection of cycles, structures, and processes that interact. Students should understand a whole in terms of its components and how these components relate to each other and to the whole. All systems have basic properties that can be described in terms of space, time, energy, and matter. Change and constancy occur in systems and can be observed and measured as patterns. These patterns help to predict what will happen next and can change over time.

(4) Investigations are used to learn about the natural world. Students should understand that certain types of questions can be answered by investigations, and that methods, models, and conclusions built from these investigations change as new observations are made. Models of objects and events are tools for understanding the natural world and can show how systems work. They have limitations and based on new discoveries are constantly being modified to more closely reflect the natural world.

(7) Science concepts. The student knows the theory of biological evolution. The student is expected to:

(A) identify evidence of change in species using fossils, DNA sequences, anatomical similarities, physiological similarities, and embryology; and

(B) illustrate the results of natural selection in speciation, diversity, phylogeny, adaptation, behavior, and extinction.

Evolution is being taught in Texas.

There is another bit of nonsense popular on Slashdot - that Christians cannot be scientists, let alone good scientists.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God [cnn.com]

April 03, 2007|By Dr. Francis Collins Special to CNN

I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.

As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan..... read the rest [cnn.com]

The Human Genome Project made copious use of computers, so it is perhaps fitting that Donald Knuth [stanford.edu] , author of The Art of Computer Programming [amazon.com] and creator of the typesetting language TeX [wikipedia.org] (along with various books on mathematics, such as Selected Papers on Discrete Mathematics [amazon.com] ) is also a strong Christian. He has written some interesting books, such as 3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated [areditions.com] , and Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About [stanford.edu] .

Despite the fact that I said that more than half of the scientists don't believe in God, many scientists do believe in both science and God, in a perfectly consistent way. --- RICHARD P. FEYNMAN

What do scientists think about religion? [latimes.com]

According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.

Furthermore, scientists today are no less likely to believe in God than they were almost 100 years ago, when the scientific community was first polled on this issue. In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes "monkey" trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not. Scientists have unearthed many important fossils since then, but they are, if anything, more likely to believe in God today.

Scientists' belief in God varies by discipline - Study debunks notion that science is incompatible with religion [msn.com]

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

The opposite had been expected.

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.

"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.

Some stand-out statistics: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.

In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.

Scientists and Their Gods - (Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?) [irr.org] -- By Dr. Henry F. Schaefer, III

Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." – U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.

To wrap things up....

Western civilization, it seems to me, stands by two great heritages. One is the scientific spirit of adventure – the adventure into the unknown, an unknown which must be recognized as being unknown in order to be explored; the demand that the unanswerable mysteries of the universe remain unanswered; the attitude that all is uncertain; to summarize it – the humility of the intellect. The other great heritage is Christian ethics – the basis of action on love, the brotherhood of all men, the value of the individual – the humility of the spirit. --- RICHARD P. FEYNMAN, THE RELATION OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

"Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative." -- G.K. Chesterton

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (0)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207244)

It is hard to argue with Creationists and I.D. followers, they can't get their little minds around the concept of evolution and therefore think their God is equally dim, their mind is so small it even refuses to contemplate their God is powerful enough to run a system like evolution.

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36207302)

People like you and the people of the story are some of the few reasons a European like me (though Europeans are quite diverse) still have some hope for your country.

Re:Please please, PLEASE! Come to Texas all 50 tim (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207770)

I like how you subtly put windows and mac users into the I.D camp.

In other news (1)

munky99999 (781012) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206398)

The scientists that went on that trip are very bad at telling the difference between the truth and lies. They probably saw the scientists as missionaries and put on the good southern polite smile but never heard a word.

Science missionaries (1)

fusiongyro (55524) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206462)

Great, now we have missionaries in science. Fight fire with fire?

Re:Science missionaries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206496)

What else can you do? Have you ever tried convincing someone that you should use dihydrogen monoxide to stop an uncontrolled oxidation reaction?

Re:Science missionaries (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206522)

They started attacking us first, so defending ourselves is only natural.
As to the Dihydrogen Monoxide issue, a town in California tried to ban it. I don't see what the big deal was, it's not like they have enough of it to start with, they keep trying to take ours we have here in Oregon every couple of years. Ok, California does have one really large supply of it, but they can't use it for too much as it's been far too contaminated with a chlorine based substance, and it's kind of expensive to purify.

Re:Science missionaries (3, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206970)

Great, now we have missionaries in science. Fight fire with fire?

Antibody response.

Kind of like the Gay Pride movement, which IMO was a response the the 1980s habit of social conservatives peaking into closets hoping to 'out' homosexuals. Well, now they're out, and the people who were outing them wish they were back in.

Law of unintended consequences, etc.

Being a stanch Republican .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206506)

I know for a fact we didn't evolve from a monkey we evolved from a jackass. That's why we chose it as our symbol.

The issue is that some people are stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206514)

I believe in God, but it says that God created the heavens and the earth. As it is. If the design looks like evolution, then thats the design. Denying it is denying God. There seem to be zealots with more zeal than sense. Earlier today, I saw something about the end of the world. The problem with the guy spouting about the end of the world, is the same problem with the people who dream crap up. The words 'Intelligent Design" as two words are nowhere in the Bible. Its something made up by someone. The Bible mentions not trying to figure out when God will show up again. Yet nutters persist. They mean well, (actually the guy who hoped the end would come today, also hoped it would come in 1994) -- so much for once bitten twice shy! The world we live in is the world we live in. Fundamentalists gave DaVinchi hell over the planets. They gave Kepler hell too. Yet they later set up schools to train people in logic and reason (mind you, the Greeks starting with Socrates, his student Plato, and Plato's student Aristotle pressed philosophical thought and strict analytical thinking into world (or at least western) literature. Darwin came along about 100 years ago. Everything that DaVinchi talked about has been soundly proven, well beyond dispute. Biology is one of the sciences that has been on a tear in the last few years. Evolution in action kits will be available in schools within a few years. Go ahead, deny what you see right before your own eyes. Evolution is a dynamic system. I'm happy. Static systems are prone to breakdowns.

They won't leave a lasting impact. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206558)

Say what you want about religion, but Catholicism has helped shape young minds to be fit for the workplace far better than the exceptional, honest scientist. The fact is that deep in the scientific subtext is a dangerous idea -- that if you remove any assumptions about social order, and begin applying science to your own life, your own personality and your own standards, that you can blindside the least desirable bits of the established order with your own ideas.

That leaves us with how to keep the wheels greased. The key notion is that American culture is not worth rescuing. Why would a child eat or want to be a STEM or any other kind of vegetable when he or she can feast on sugar [orlandosentinel.com] ? Foreign students [wikipedia.org] are doing the work of getting the proper education just fine on their own -- the only metric is that there are enough of these professionals to wind up as the necessary cogs of industry. Indoctrinated, of course, with necessary subtext -- limit your interests to your own field, and never consider the implications in a broader context. Also, contracts are binding and non-negotiable; of course your mindshare [louisianalawblog.com] is of the company's benefit solely.

To think of the average American child, therefore, we need only appeal to economics. I will take for given the idea that public schools are inefficient [wikipedia.org] . That granted, the Catholic Church has considerable infrastructure already [wikipedia.org] in [wikipedia.org] place [timesonline.co.uk] to take over a large breadth of education. Coursework would be greatly simplified into the substance necessary: respect [nndb.com] for [goo.gl] authority [wikipedia.org] . The price of a penis [backseatblogger.com] entering an anus [goo.gl] in a normative corrective context could not possibly be lower, and this would be a critical part of education. Instead of a standardized test, we would get back to the individual teacher having discretion on which students pass; the metric would be solely if the child exhibits the necessary rate of submission [goo.gl] .

In conclusion, we must affirm our societal values by applying them economically; these are corporate values at their best. Time-honored and conservative; easy to relate to and understand. Christian in every way.

Evolutionary scientists...wtf (1)

J.J. Dane (1562629) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206814)

When did the I.D nutjobs get so entrenched that anybody would feel it necessary to use a term like "evolutionary scientists" for what used to be just plain old scientists?

"evolutionary scientists" (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36206840)

This is supposed to be a site for nerds, you know, basement dwellers, not cavemen/women.

Don't bullshit us with "scientists". Spell them ouit - biologists, physicists, paleontologists, etc.

Well, you see, oldhack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36207842)

Nobody's ever lost money modding the Slashdotters "underintelligent."

well duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206844)

Of course everyone was welcoming and gracious. any school against them wouldn't have hosted them...

Only in America... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36206890)

...the USA that is.
America is a great place to visit but I wouldn't like to live there.
In most of the rest of the world evolution is like geography or art or whatever, it's just one branch of human knowledge - taught in schools, sometimes discussed, sometimes questioned but not special.
There are lots of religious believers and non-believers in the world, very few behave like they do in the USA.

Indoctrination (3, Interesting)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207416)

The reason you can't convince the bible-thumpers is because they have been indoctrinated since birth through churches, televangelists and others trying to push religious agendas. They've been brainwashed to the point where a rational argument or demonstration will not win them over. They are impervious to facts and scientific evidence involving empirical data. Intelligent Design is nothing more than Creationism re-branded in an attempt to circumnavigate the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution (which has helped to keep religion out of public schools)...This was proven in the court case: Kitzmiller v. Dover.

Don't worry about Neb / Va schools, Tx and Ga OTOH (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36207544)

I don't worry about Neb / Va schools and religious teaching being pushed into schools. I attended school in those states and science WAS core.

I've also lied in Tx and Ga. Religious fanatics are often part of the local governments and push non-scientific, magical reasoning into school books. I live in a county in GA today that has forced science teachers to teach creationism (thought they call it ID). Whatever. As both an engineer and an Atheist, I'm embarrassed for my public schools to be doing this.

For all you so-called educated people who believe in a mysterious "god" - instead of reading the current best seller next week, read the bible from start to finish. I have. It isn't much of a book and Christians pick the best parts to share, leaving behind the horrendous things and just really BAD writing.

I don't have any issue if people want to believe in an imaginary friend and call it, god. That's fine. Just don't push that crap on my kids. I would pray for you and your souls, but you don't have a soul and there's nobody listening to "prayers" so that would be a complete waste of time.

[Insert Title Here] (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36207792)

Taking Darwin on the road, in this day and age? Doesn't he rattle incessantly?

Good stuff, though, this can only be applauded.

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>