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!

Map of Publicly-Funded Creationism Teaching

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the everything-I-needed-to-know dept.

Education 544

Capt.Albatross writes "At Slate, Chris Kirk presents a map of schools in the USA that both receive public funding and teach creationism. It also shows public schools in those states where they are allowed to teach creationism (without necessarily implying that creationism is taught in all public schools of those states). There is a brief outline of the regulations in those states where this occurs, but the amounts involved are not discussed."

cancel ×

544 comments

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

cared... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085713)

Almost... I *almost* cared...

Re:cared... (1)

Kvasio (127200) | about 8 months ago | (#46086297)

You should care - it seems that Hawaii is not an US territory anymore.

Texas Barely Registers (4, Interesting)

lgw (121541) | about 8 months ago | (#46085723)

For all the trash that gets talked about Texas in this regard, it barely registers here, and only for some sort of "Responsive Ed charter school" that a Texan might explain better - sounds like it's not the normal school system.

Louisiana and Tennessee OTOH - ouch!

Re:Texas Barely Registers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085791)

Yes. It seems like a huge beat up. Outside of Tennessee and Louisiana it seems like not all that much is happening, and in those two states it seems to be more as part of the alternative theories stuff which includes global warming.

Re:Texas Barely Registers (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086345)

I don't see why Texas gets ragged on so much. Live here, love it. Mostly wholesome Christians, most of which I've met believe in evolution...because it's logical.

I think it's ok to fund it, as long as everything is taught or easily available to learn about. I don't really see how you could fill a whole class, or even an hour to teach how evolution works.

Maybe I'm just a product of bad education in that way...idk. I've not met many people who don't believe in evolution. And I've never met anyone in Texas who things same-sex marriage should be banned. Most people I've met here(born and raised here) think it's criminal that is isn't legal already. The laws are slow moving, however they are moving the way to equality, look at the current court cases.

I think I'm going to have add a couple states to my "No way, no how" list for taking up residency in...

Captcha!!: disprove

Re:Texas Barely Registers (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085839)

To be fair, what the image is showing is deceptive. Both states you mention have "teach the controversy" laws that apply to Public Schools, while Texas is showing the specific charter schools.

not affiliated, I just think they're teh funnae (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085905)

did someone say "teach the controversy" [wearscience.com] ?

Re:not affiliated, I just think they're teh funnae (3, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | about 8 months ago | (#46086147)

I can't wait until "The joy of sect" becomes mandatory reading in high schools.

Re:Texas Barely Registers (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#46085925)

To be fair, what the image is showing is deceptive. Both states you mention have "teach the controversy" laws that apply to Public Schools, while Texas is showing the specific charter schools.

To be fair, no one has ever accurately characterized Slate.com as being biased towards red states.

Re:Texas Barely Registers (5, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | about 8 months ago | (#46085963)

What I find interesting on the map is the lack of "other religious" institutions that also support the ideology. They don't list muslim schools in VA, MD, or DC, or those in TN, or WI(many of which get public funding or falls under vouchers. But they list the various christian denominations...odd...how very odd. They don't list the Jewish schools either.

Re:Texas Barely Registers (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086073)

How is that odd? Muslims and Jews aren't the fanatical threat to freedom and education that Conservative Christians currently are in America.

Re:Texas Barely Registers (3, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | about 8 months ago | (#46086117)

How is that odd? Muslims and Jews aren't the fanatical threat to freedom and education that Conservative Christians currently are in America.

Really? Apparently you've never run across a your average non-westernized muslim(or standard conservative muslims), they're more than happy to shove their opinions down your throat. While doing so, they'll also demand that you directly accommodate them. Jews generally are happy to not shove their opinions down your throat on their religious issues, and the more conservative are generally happier to enclave themselves up and run their lives according to how they want to run them.

Re:Texas Barely Registers (4, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | about 8 months ago | (#46086185)

If there's a map of public schools with forced Muslim or Jewish teachings, please share it.

Re:Texas Barely Registers (-1, Troll)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 8 months ago | (#46086339)

In Many (most??) Public Schools are teaching Islam Tolerance and how great Islam is, with the help of CAIR. Including Field Trips to Mosques where they teach students to pray to Allah.

http://www.islaminourschools.c... [islaminourschools.com]

Oh, I know, Christian Fundamentalists gone WILD!!!!! Dismiss. FAUX news ... DISMISS!!!

http://www.sfgate.com/politics... [sfgate.com]

www.jewsnews.co.il/2013/08/08/tennessee-five-pillars-of-islam-in-public-school/

I know the big leftwing teaching the is the "Evils of Christianity", while teaching "Islam is a peaceful religion" in a kind of over compensating sort of Liberal "can't we all get along" sort of way. BUT the fact is, Islam will kill the pver sexualizing liberals first, when they get power. You best be praying to Cthulhu that will kill everyone first.

In short, if they ever did create a map of Islamic Teaching in America, CAIR would protest and it would be revoked.

Re:Texas Barely Registers (5, Insightful)

the gnat (153162) | about 8 months ago | (#46086353)

Apparently you've never run across a your average non-westernized muslim(or standard conservative muslims), they're more than happy to shove their opinions down your throat. While doing so, they'll also demand that you directly accommodate them.

Most Americans I know could say the same thing about the average fundamentalist Christian. God knows I (an unrepentant atheist and blasphemer) wouldn't want to live in any majority-Muslim country, but in the US, the only people campaigning to have religion taught in biology class are Christians.

Re:Texas Barely Registers (5, Insightful)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about 8 months ago | (#46086369)

I can count on 0 fingers the number of times that muslim teachings and jewish teachings have directly taken a shit on my liberties in the US, with the exception of a few South Park episodes. However I can't begin the count the number of times that ridiculous xian bullshit has ruined my day. I think the operative term in the AC's post was "in America." Muslims don't control enough of the population of affect real change in the US and the jews are happy to keep it relatively quiet, however miss Bobbie Sue from Wichita is fucking things up for everyone daily with her religious bullshit, especially in red states. I think that was the point the AC was trying to make.

Non-westernized muslims are fairly rare here in the US.

Re:Texas Barely Registers (1)

the gnat (153162) | about 8 months ago | (#46086359)

What I find interesting on the map is the lack of "other religious" institutions that also support the ideology. They don't list muslim schools in VA, MD, or DC, or those in TN, or WI(many of which get public funding or falls under vouchers. But they list the various christian denominations...odd...how very odd. They don't list the Jewish schools either.

Maybe the Muslim and Jewish schools don't waste time teaching pseudoscience?

Re:Texas Barely Registers (3, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | about 8 months ago | (#46086463)

I don't know if muslim or jewish schools teach fake science. I doubt they use curriculum and books for Fox News to talk about the white man is inferior because he did not have stirrup until about 1000 years after Asia. I know that Talmudic and sharia law is the bugaboo of the evangelical christian, and this is probably what is taking about here, using public money to teach these values. But here is news. There is not much daylight between evangelical and other fanatical religious laws. They all want to control when we enjoy ourselves, they all want to control women, and they all want a select few to control what we know. In any case, this is speaking of very specific topic, which is teaching creationism using public funds. One would have to provide evidence that schools other than evangelical Christians are doing such things in a rigorous manner. For instance get a worksheet that is corrected when the student says he prays to allah instead of a christian g-d. As far as the Texas thing is concerned, Texas is not a state where one can be a total dumbass and still succeed. There are only so many MBA or drug sales jobs for the evangelical scientific illiterate person. Schlumberger and BP are not going to tolerate the average public school teacher educating kids in fake science. The oil patch needs people who can build electronics, not pray for a strike.

Re:Texas Barely Registers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086251)

It's a specific type of charter school set up by a company called Responsive Education Solutions as far as I know. I think our public schools in Texas were required to mention creationism / "teach it" but I never once had or even heard of a teacher who wouldn't explain it as "something we're required to go over" and that "certain people ignore scientific evidence and believe..." before ripping into why it was wrong without outright saying it was wrong (i.e. starting the unit on evolution and comparing the evidence point by point). I don't know if this was the norm statewide, but it was pretty much universal in our school district and every neighboring school district I knew of. It got to be an issue because a vocal minority got pissed the schools didn't actually care about teaching creationism and the schools' response was that they taught it as much as they had to and that they wouldn't append the units due to "time constraints in the curriculum". We had a unit on it in pretty much every science class up until where they split into individual branches (so about high school level) and any which dealt with life and/or its origins (even tangentially) had to have a similar unit.

Re:Texas Barely Registers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086311)

You're reading the map incorrectly. Schools shown in La and Tn don't necessarily teach creationism. They simply, by state law, may. Those shown in Tx actually do.

Good (-1, Troll)

Stumbles (602007) | about 8 months ago | (#46085773)

There needs to be more.

Re:Good (5, Funny)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about 8 months ago | (#46085831)

More what?
Stoning of adulterers?
Slavery?
Animal sacrifice?
Other things Bronze Age religion requires?

If Christ turns water into wine, does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?

Re:Good (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085871)

If Christ turns water into wine, does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?

I turn wine into water... Uh oh.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086435)

Urine != water.

Re:Good (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#46085949)

If Christ turns water into wine, does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?

Cold Coors Light. [youtube.com]

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 8 months ago | (#46086003)

I believe GP's point was that the more theories there are, the better - and I agree. Hell, let's chuck all the 'theories' in there, right down to the last turtle.

I'll explain:

While the Earth is a whole hell of a lot lot older than ~6,000 orbits, it does provide one benefit: You get to force students to think outside the box. Show them what crap science looks like. Towards that end, we really ought to force the little rugrats to think - long and hard; the earlier, the better. Meanwhile, maybe as a reaction, this will spur the school boards to bring back a few things that have been missing from public schools for way the hell too long: Logic, Rhetoric, Scientific Methodology, Critical Thinking, and (actual) Debate. I learned all of this in Catholic school around 6-8th grades, whereas most public high schools don't even bother (let alone at the lower grades). Basically, I want to see this Creationism stunt force the schools into teaching kids to question everything they're told, and more importantly, giving them the tools to actually do it.

Let's face it - nowadays, kids are basically taught to do what they're told in matters that are critical (e.g. civics, science), but to be overly-creative in superfluous matters (art, sex, etc). Maybe in a perverse way, this push for creationism, such as it is, will reverse the slide.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086113)

Creationism isn't a theory, in the scientific sense. I'd explain, but I've found writing to your ilk to be like trying to explain physics to potholders.

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 8 months ago | (#46086271)

Throwing invalid and in many cases demonstrably false claims at students who don't have the background to see the invalidity is ludicrous. I mean, why single science out? Why not teach Holocaust denial in history class? After all, wouldn't that challenge students too? Perhaps you could also teach 2+2=5 and French verb conjugation in English class.

Schools are supposed to teach science, like any other subject, to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Teaching students that somehow just because someone calls some nonsense claim a "theory" is not teaching at all.

Re:Good (5, Funny)

rokstar (865523) | about 8 months ago | (#46086045)

does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?

No but my liver does. Always knew the damn thing was evil.

Re:Good (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 8 months ago | (#46086343)

It's almost like you have no idea what the Bible really says or where those lines are from. It's almost like you're just spewing out someone else's incorrect bullshit without knowing anything Christianity. It's almost as if you're mixing the old testament and new testament and I'm pretty sure Christianity had something important that changed things in between the two...hmmm...

Re:Good (0)

platypusfriend (1956218) | about 8 months ago | (#46086389)

Christians actually follow the teachings of the Bible's new testament, and consider the old testament laws to be a fulfilled chapter of their predecessors, the Jews. With respect, my suggestion is that you read the entirety of Christ's teachings before commenting on them.

Re:Good (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 8 months ago | (#46086393)

If Christ turns water into wine, does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?

Que syrah syrah, what ever will be will be.

Re:Good (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086001)

Oh god yes, because we haven't hit the bottom yet. We need to start stoning faggots, burning witches, owning slaves and doing all that other awesome stuff from your big book of alternatives to rational thought that your magic man in the sky gave to that fictional band of bronze age desert wanderers. You know, go back to the good old days before science and rational thought screwed things up with unholy crap like computers, democratic republics, vaccines, schools, automobiles, satellites, roads, television so you could live out your 30 years of killing non-believers as the good lord intended. Oh, but quick glance at your /. history reveals that you're one of those who hasn't actually READ the book with which you thump everything.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086421)

Have you read the book?

Land of the dumb, home of the uninformed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085799)

I weap for thee...

Re:Land of the dumb, home of the uninformed (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#46085901)

Unfortunately, the US's first major "nation building" failure might be said to have occurred after the civil war... We defeated the insurgency; but never really managed to rebuild a functional society in the southern provinces. If subsequent events are any guide, we may just suck at dealing with religious zealots with shitty human rights records.

Re:Land of the dumb, home of the uninformed (1)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about 8 months ago | (#46086053)

aka Land of the Derp, home of the homeless.

Re:Land of the dumb, home of the misspelled (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086101)

I weep for thee

That's a lot less then I expected (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085803)

For as big of a deal that is frequently made of this, it's a lot less then I'd expected. Honestly, it looks like it's only a "problem" in two states, and even there only list as much because "these schools *might* be teaching it."

Re:That's a lot less then I expected (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085967)

Sssh! Stop being reasonable. If we are reasonable about this, the creationists will win.

Re:That's a lot less then I expected (2)

Bartles (1198017) | about 8 months ago | (#46086019)

Heh, look at the correction at the bottom of the artlicle. No slant at Slate!

A lot worse than it seems (5, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 8 months ago | (#46086049)

Nearly half of all Americans believe that humans were placed on earth in their current form, magically by the hand of God Himself, with no evolutionary changes or modifications every occurring. And the number is rising.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/218... [gallup.com]

Do you want to know what brings about the biblical apocalypse? Ignorance of the natural world in which we live. Buckle your seatbelts, because the ignorant are starting to drive this bus we call civilization, and the last stop is not utopia.

here we go again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085809)

Just can't let the 'I hate Christians' thing go can you?

Re:here we go again (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#46085853)

If they want to go fucking with the establishment clause, no, I can't. Otherwise, no problem.

Re:here we go again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086023)

If they want to go fucking with the establishment clause, no, I can't. Otherwise, no problem.

It's quite a stretch to go from teaching in a public school what the Holy Bible says about creation and having that as another creation story along with abiogenesis (which has less proof) vs having Congress establish a national religion. But you go ahead and make that tired old argument.

Re:here we go again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086183)

If they want to go fucking with the establishment clause, no, I can't. Otherwise, no problem.

It's quite a stretch to go from teaching in a public school what the Holy Bible says about creation and having that as another creation story along with abiogenesis (which has less proof) vs having Congress establish a national religion. But you go ahead and make that tired old argument.

No actually it is not. There is no proof for the "god did it" hypothesis as "this book says so" is an appeal to authority which is a fallacy.

On the other hand abiogenesis, is consistent with known chemistry and suspected ancient geography, and the process of formation of organic molecules has been successfully demonstrated in the laboratory.

Re:here we go again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086189)

It's quite a stretch to go from teaching in a public school what the Holy Bible says about creation and having that as another creation story along with abiogenesis (which has less proof) vs having Congress establish a national religion.

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with teaching the Christian version of creationism, as long as you do it along side the Muslim creation story, the Hindu creation story, the Shinto creation story, the Navajo creation story, ... you get the idea. The separation of church and state means that the state may not show or indicate preference for any religion over another, but must treat them all equally.

Of course, most scientists object to teaching any of the creation fables in biology class because they all lack any of the features of "science." They're great in a history or literature class, but let's not confuse them with science.

Re:here we go again (1)

the gnat (153162) | about 8 months ago | (#46086461)

But you go ahead and make that tired old argument.

We don't need to - the Supreme Court already made it for us, long before most of us were born. If you're unhappy with this, start working to repeal the 14th Amendment.

Re:here we go again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085861)

It's quite the leap from "I hate willful ignorance and fact-deniers" to "I hate Christians". Christianity, or any religion for that matter, does not have to be incompatible with scientific reason, despite how much extremists of both sides of the issue insist is is so.

Re:here we go again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085927)

hahahha you said science, you are gonna buuuurrrrrnnnnn

Re:here we go again (5, Insightful)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 8 months ago | (#46085923)

Just can't let the 'I hate Christians' thing go can you?

It's not a "I hate Christians" thing. It's a "I hate dishonesty" thing. If you're teaching something in a class that claims to be a science class, then you are supposed to be teaching the scientific method (the core of "science") and things that have been learned and proven using the scientific method. Instead, if you are teaching creationism, you are not only teaching something that does not stand up to the scientific method, but you are also teaching that things that have been very well proven using the scientific method are wrong. This is dishonest. If you want to teach creationism or any other aspect of any other religion, that's great, just be sure to label the class "theology" and not something related to science.

How would you feel if, instead of something that Christians came up with, they were teaching Scientology as if it were fact? Do you think teaching that humans on earth came from the evil lord Xenu belongs in a science class? Regardless of which aspects of which religions are right or wrong, it belongs in a theology class, not a science class. Or, to make another analogy, should a school be teaching about the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in a math class? Regardless of whether what they're teaching is right or wrong, that topic belongs in a history class, not a math class.

Re:here we go again (-1, Troll)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 8 months ago | (#46086329)

Oh that's interesting. When did scientists prove without a doubt that the universe isn't a simulation and examined all matter and energy in existence and all dimensions, simultaneously disproving higher intelligence and God as existing? You'd think slashdot would have have covered that story.

Until those are true, evolution is simply a short-sighted theory that explains one possibility of our existence and creation and it doesn't even reach past 3 dimensional physical physics. You'd thin by 2014 we'd be past that. We've created antimatter, time dilation effects, anticipated multiple alternate dimensions, etc and people still pick up a fossil and say "nope, this must be the sole explanation."

Re:here we go again (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086375)

Oh that's interesting. When did scientists prove without a doubt that the universe isn't a simulation and examined all matter and energy in existence and all dimensions, simultaneously disproving higher intelligence and God as existing? You'd think slashdot would have have covered that story.

See, this is why we need good science education. You don't even know what science IS. Its aim is not to "prove things without a doubt."

Re:here we go again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086471)

Oh that's interesting. When did scientists prove without a doubt that the universe isn't a simulation and examined all matter and energy in existence and all dimensions, simultaneously disproving higher intelligence and God as existing? You'd think slashdot would have have covered that story.

See, this is why we need good science education. You don't even know what science IS. Its aim is not to "prove things without a doubt."

Not only that, but he thinks evolutionary theory somehow disproves the existence of God. So he knows crap about science and theology. My guess: Tennessee.

It's Not Hate (3, Insightful)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about 8 months ago | (#46085941)

It's not hate to want factually incorrect, archaic, dropped-from-the-mainstream facets of Christianity removed from public education in Tennessee and Louisiana.

Only the literalist interpretation of the Bible demands such teachings, but such followers are caught between their own sense of reason and their own faith. Those followers feel if they bend on this, and say the Bible is not perfect, it is the same as denying their entire faith. Most versions of Christianity no longer hold such literal interpretations, so based on the map, it may be a Baptist thing?

Map (5, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | about 8 months ago | (#46085819)

on presumably a flat earth

Re:Map (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085889)

The Earth is flat, ya moron. You can _clearly_ see so on Google Maps, and Google Maps doesn't lie. If the Earth was round, we'd need spherical displays to run mapping applications.

Re:Map (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086035)

The earth isn't flat -- I've seen hills and mountains and valleys and such!

Re:Map (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 8 months ago | (#46086245)

I dropped my laptop on a rock, and the screen is spherical now.

Because Snowden 3D prints Bitcoin? (-1, Troll)

raymorris (2726007) | about 8 months ago | (#46085833)

Give it a rest already.

Re:Because Snowden 3D prints Bitcoin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085887)

You sound fat.

amounts (1)

roninmagus (721889) | about 8 months ago | (#46085865)

"The amounts involved are not discussed" because this is a non-story. I spent (served time?) 12 Years in a Tennessee school in a highly populated area and creationism was not taught at all. This article intends to imply that us backwards rednecks are teachin' the chillrens 'bout Jesus, and that simply isn't happening to the statewide scale this fancy map displays.

Your 1950s experience is irrelevant today. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085985)

Great. You spent 12 years in Tennessee schools back in the 1950s and 1960s. How the fuck is that relevant now, a good 60+ years later?

Re:amounts (1, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#46085995)

I'm not surprised - it's Slate.

Did you notice what category they placed this obvious political editorial into? Not Opinions, not Editorials, not Politics, but "Science and Health."

For an attack piece nigh bereft of any actual science.

Well shit, if that's what the uber-left-wingers consider "science," I don't guess I can fault the uber-right-wingers for disagreeing.

Re:amounts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086015)

It didn't happen to me, therefor it doesn't matter.

-- roninmagus, 2014

Sigh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085895)

Evolution has about as much evidence backing it up as Christian creationism or the idea that fucking aliens terraformed the planet (in 6 of their home-planet days while cooling the systems down on the 7th day) and genetically enhanced apes into niggers.

Now fuck off, ass holes. You all are so easily polarized and accept anything some scientist tells you. Evolution is a theory. It can't be proven as the origin of humanity. In fact, it's a bit of a stretch to think it was the origin of humanity. But so is Christian creationism. I'm leaning more toward the whole alien theory. But then that's called "intelligent design" and you dumb fucks can't distinguish that from Christian creationism.

Re:Sigh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085991)

You seem to fail and distinguishing the concept of "scientific theory" against "made up after too much wine" theory. In scientific terms, the word theory has a special meaning.

somebody help me out (2)

coolsnowmen (695297) | about 8 months ago | (#46085897)

First read the bills slate.com gives as evidence.
http://ncse.com/files/pub/lega... [ncse.com]
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bill... [tn.gov]

Now, show me where it says, "teach creationism".

I'm not saying they are wrong, and that LA/TN aren't teach creationism; but those laws seem to protect teachers from getting fired for teaching [locally controversial] science the way I read them (as long as they don't explicitly say, "you're religion is wrong").

Re:somebody help me out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085969)

If saying anything, hopefully they'd say "your religion is wrong".

Total drivel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085921)

For an article supposedly praising science and demonizing religion, it includes a lot of speculation and distortions.

"Schools in AZ *MAY* be receiving funding under a tuition program" is both speculation and distortion.

    -> AZ doesn't do vouchers. They have a tax credit program individuals can participate in.

    -> the courts have ruled that donations to these programs are private money that individuals can do with as they choose.

But at the end of the day, why does this idiot care, other than to push an atheist agenda?

The only question that should matter is "Does the school teach X, Y, Z." Classically, that'd be Reading, wRiting, and Arithmetic. If they also teach J, K, L and M, who cares.

Hm... the submission system is screwing up the formatting.

Just another idiot using the establishment clause as an excuse to trample on the Free Exercise Clause.

And before you say "But they're using public money"- check that, and be sure it's actually public money- as if there is such a thing instead of private money the government has (mis)appropriated. In at least the AZ case, it's not public money.

Re:Total drivel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085981)

courts have ruled that money is also speech and that corporations are people... so courts must be right.

A great target map (1)

zakeria (1031430) | about 8 months ago | (#46085975)

for dropping the H-Bomb!

Re:A great target map (1)

ichthus (72442) | about 8 months ago | (#46086159)

And, by 'H', you mean Hate, right?

Why Slashdot has Jumped The Shark (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46085993)

Interesting to see stories like this on Slashdot.
Nothing of value to most people, just trying to polarize and be extremist.

Who gives a shit if we were created, evolved, spurt out of the Spaghetti Monster's anus.

Since no one was there, we will never know for sure.

Why is this on Slashdot - it's like going to the Vatican web site and reading about Ubuntu.

WTF.

Washington, you have a problem (2)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about 8 months ago | (#46086005)

What happened to you U.S.A? You used to be cool.

Re:Washington, you have a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086157)

The clerisy happened. Technocrats that use "science" to justify their ideas that are nonetheless third or fourth hand from reality.

This isn't to say that creationism is a better idea, but seen in this light it's understandable why some saw the need to come up with an antidote for what they not unrightfully see as an attack on their values and way of life. It's really quite well-thought-out, in a low-brow cunning way, actually.

The deeper problem is that science is being abused this way, and then gets attacked by creationism, leaving the real perps nicely out of reach. And who're those? Well, you figure it out. But the point is that creationism isn't the first to go after science, and not the worst. Take out the clerisy, restore science to its proper place (as in, stop abusing it for political gain), and creationism will lose traction.

Arizona (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 8 months ago | (#46086009)

Arizona: As many as 15 schools that teach creationism may be participating in the state’s tax credit scholarship program for disabled children or children attending underperforming schools. (Arizona has not released a list of private schools that have received students on this scholarship.)

READ: There are 15 schools in Arizona that teach creationism (*sigh*), and they are apparently eligible to receive tax credits for certain disadvantaged students on a scholarship, but there's no data that says any of these schools actually have any of those students.

The Slate doesn't mention this, but there's a WAY bigger loophole.

You can, in Arizona (as well as a lot of other places) donate up to $200 per person (or $400 per household, IIRC) to a school fully tax deductible from your state taxes. As long as you've got $200 worth of state tax liability, and you like the school your kid goes to more than the general education fund, you can just give them $200 in cash in December, and "get" $200 off your Arizona taxes as soon as you file. Every school here sends their kids home with a donation form every year - it's a cash grab.

So, as long as it's a valid school, you can use state money (in a roundabout way) to pay for their creationism.

Re:Arizona (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 8 months ago | (#46086097)

....in case it wasn't clear in my post, you don't actually need a child in school. Anyone can donate $200 to a specific school in Arizona (grade school, high school, charter school) and reduce their Arizona tax liability by $200.

Re:Arizona (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086299)

And you're still off the mark:

It's $200/individual, $400/married for donations to *public* schools for extracurricular activities (with an excessively broad definition of extracurricular- Music falls here).
But you're barking up the wrong tree.

The tree you wanted to bark at is the private school tuition tax credit, which this year is over $2000/couple (2062, I think) max.

Now, despite the beliefs held by you and your liberal ilk, this is *private* money. Not "state money". Individuals are free to do with it as they see fit.
I know this drives you and your ilk crazy- people being individuals and not part of your collective, but that's the way it is.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy? (2)

Tablizer (95088) | about 8 months ago | (#46086229)

15 schools in Arizona that teach creationism...and they are apparently eligible to receive tax credits for certain disadvantaged students

They are disadvantaged: they don't know evolution.

Awfully misleading map (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086021)

The green dots are basically defined as ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS in two states where creationism is allowed to be taught.

dumbistan & dumberistan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086105)

Strangely enough, most people from other states widely accept the stereotype of those states being a bunch of sister-fucking hillbillies and welfare-queen rednecks.
No correlation there, nosiree...

Once again Mississippi and Alabama (1)

Snufu (1049644) | about 8 months ago | (#46086059)

stand as a bulwark island of rationalism and progressivism against an encroaching sea of faith-based ideology.

ta30 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086083)

Usenet posts. who are inter5ted it wiil be among

Worried about Creationism, really? (0)

SlowCanuck (1692198) | about 8 months ago | (#46086115)

I think Christianity and creationism should be the least of your worries, or is it okay for.... Civil liberties to be violated without reason? The Government to be controlled by the greedy and emotionless group think corporations? The Fear of our "enemies" to allow us to violate everything we found dear? A large population has been hand fed that Government should take care of every aspect of our lives? We have lost any true sense of independence and risk that comes with going out on our own? Our universities are becoming breeding grounds of social conformity to a homogeneous culture of the mediocre? Lastly, there is a religion that holds all the fears of a Bronze age belief in certain sects, and those sects have ideals of taking over the planet! They are not Christian, Jew or Buddhist! Keep worrying about Creationism, and watch as the USA burns around you! It's like being in the middle of a restaurant fire, and your worried some dirty cutlery!!

Flame Bait (1, Insightful)

laie_techie (883464) | about 8 months ago | (#46086119)

TFA is itself flame bait. Note that the map shows schools that may teach alternative theories (including arguing against human caused global warming), but in the title implies that they do teach creationism using public funds.

Re:Flame Bait (1)

log0n (18224) | about 8 months ago | (#46086259)

I'd consider the argument that 'may teach' mumbo-jumbo is exactly the same as 'do teach' mumbo-jumbo. The threshold of accepting mumbo-jumbo has already been crossed. The implementation is secondary at that point.

Re:Flame Bait (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 8 months ago | (#46086277)

At least someone other than me noticed and pointed that out. But you know everyone on any side of this argument is extremely prejudiced and short-sighted due to pre-existing beliefs. See the very next root topic down for why people really ought to expand their thinking to consider all possible theories.

Re:Flame Bait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086431)

TFA is itself flame bait. Note that the map shows schools that may teach alternative theories (including arguing against human caused global warming), but in the title implies that they do teach creationism using public funds.

...and why isn't having the option to teach non-science in a science classroom to promote some sort of political agenda a big deal? Frankly just having the option is horrifying.

creation remains undefeated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086143)

bet early & often do not get shut out

Slashdot only allows anonymous users to post 10 times per day (more or less, depending on moderation). A user from your IP has already shared his or her thoughts with us that many times. Take a breather, and come back and see us in 24 hours or so. If you think this is unfair, pretend somebody cares

Colleges should not let in these yahoos (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086153)

I hope that MIT, Cal Tech, and other top notch science places write an open letter to these school guidance departments, superintendent offices, and the local news paper, that every students who comes from one of these schools will automatically be rejected because of the poor science curriculum that includes creationism.
I urge the slashdot community, who are alumin of these schools, to contact them and urge their alma maters to contact these high schools and reject creationism.

I hope that this would change these school policies.

the real news (-1, Troll)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 8 months ago | (#46086257)

85-92% of people think evolutionists are wrong depending on how you measure it since every religion in the world disagrees with it. So to teach one theory beside another theory is just fine with me. There's no solid, indisputable proof that evolution occurred. There is only apparent evidence that the universe is a simulation or hologram. There is perfectly logical evidence that a superior intelligence created everything as well so like I said, all theories are theories and are backed by real evidence.

In case that last one confuses you, let's say Jesus makes water into wine. Scientists study the wine and determine the only way it could have been brought into being is growing grapes and fermenting them. Carbon dating and 100% of all other blatant evidence proves it yet in reality it was created instantly out of nowhere to have the appearance of being older than it was. The same applies to the Earth. So if any religion says a deity created Earth, then fossils and stuff were created on the fly as well.

Why? Well, in Christianity, the main religion in the US, the explanation is that God isn't allowed to show up in the sky and scream that he's real. It has to be taken on faith or it'd be unfair as an "open competition" according to the original terms and conditions with Satan after the Adam and Eve apple incident. So if we had indisputable evidence that the Earth was only 7000 years old because life came out of nowhere, that would break the rules. So he created fake fossils. It's a lot simpler with Buddhists. Everything doesn't actually exist in the first place, lol. It's hard to prove or disprove that but some science supports it.

So like I said, all 3 of those theories (evolution, Christian, computer simulation) are all equally unproven but with actual evidence behind them. So why teach just one? If you're truly open minded and examine all the actual evidence, a true scientist would suggest teaching every valid theory. Anyone who picks up a fossil and calls it the end-all evidence just because they're touching it clearly hasn't expanding their thinking enough to examine the true nature of physics and matter and space and reality. Similarly, "I don't religion" isn't a valid reason for teaching evolution.

Re:the real news (3, Insightful)

dskoll (99328) | about 8 months ago | (#46086447)

Why just 3 theories? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What about the Universe being sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure? Those "theories" are just a plausible as your Christian or your Simulation theories.

Evolution, on the other hand, makes testable predictions, something none of your other "theories" can claim, which makes then not theories at all in the scientific sense.

I suggest you go back to Grade 9 science class. You obviously need a refresher.

Theory of evolution does need to be challenged (0)

davide marney (231845) | about 8 months ago | (#46086265)

I cannot count the number of times I've read some book, article, or comment where the equivalent of a "then magic happens" explanation appears under the rubric of "evolution". Admittedly, not being a scientist, I am limited to popularized accounts, but I don't think it's too much to expect that if there is a clearly known mechanism that is easily reproducible, then authors should be able to describe it to an intelligent layman in a way that makes sense and is understandable.

Speaking off the top of my head, I would say that easily 80% of popular proofs for evolution are no proofs at all, but simply bald assertions: "See this lifeform here, it has this little knob on the end of its whatits. It evolved that way so it could feed better."

I don't know whether it's laziness or what, but if you want to prove something, you have to be able to show it -- ALL the steps, from here to there -- and reproduce it -- ALL of it, under controlled conditions. You can't just say, "because evolution".

Re:Theory of evolution does need to be challenged (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 8 months ago | (#46086379)

Damn right. People use "I don't like religion" as solid evidence for evolution when making up their mind. Instead, they should look at how a male of an animal creates one sexual trait and magically finds in the same generation a female with a matching but opposite sexual mutation. Because without that, it falls apart. An unbelievably over-simplified example is a peacock suddenly has colored tail feathers. The female suddenly is attracted to that. One's a physical trait involving features, the other is a mental trait involving a gene that handles brain development. If only one happened in a generation, the mutant would die out because predators would eat the brightly colored one who moves slower due to gigantic tail feathers.
That's a terrible and inaccurate example but it was supposed to illustrate the idea. Fish suddenly lay eggs an the male mutates at the same time to know to fertilize them remotely? Yeah right. Codependent gender sexual traits are unexplainable by science and we're teaching it as fact. There's actually more logical evidence and less holes in the theory at the universe is a giant simulation.

Re:Theory of evolution does need to be challenged (5, Insightful)

dskoll (99328) | about 8 months ago | (#46086469)

There's actually more logical evidence and less holes in the theory at the universe is a giant simulation.

Righto, matey. GIve me some testable predictions of your Simulation theory.

Evolution? We predict that organisms will change in response to changing conditions and we have observed it in action with the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Prediction followed by confirmation.

Your turn.

Yet more reasons to abolish public education (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086371)

There is a very large amount of evidence that children's minds are set to learn and that social facilitation of other children is a very powerful influence in their doing so.

'Hole in the wall experiment', O'Neill's "SummerHill". 'Unschooling' movement. 'Adult literacy' programs. All show that teachers and schools are not needed.

Further, a longitudinal study comparing Montessori and public schools shows that a large amount of our social pathologies can be traced back to pedagogical methods used by public schools.

Way past time to abolish public education.

Look! It's also a map of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46086403)

...the states where, if you're from there, you'll be required to take a remedial science course in college because they can't guarantee that you know even the most basic science.

let's analyze this (-1, Flamebait)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 8 months ago | (#46086439)

So Christians say evolution shouldn't be taught as fact because it has holes in it large enough to drive a school bus through while the Christian story is airtight from a logical perspective, though unprovable. Evolutionists want to teach evolution because they don't like religion. People who think the universe is a giant simulation or doesn't actually exist and we're just energy get shut down because people think it's weird and unpopular despite science strongly supporting their idea as well. Which of the 3 has more basis in logic and science? Evolution clearly takes third place, that much is certain. That's why multiple theories need to be taught.

Re:let's analyze this (1)

platypusfriend (1956218) | about 8 months ago | (#46086459)

Interestingly, the Christian story and the simulation story are the only ones that solve every one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?