Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Kansas Adopts New Science Standards

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the in-line-with-the-rest-of-us dept.

Education 868

porcupine8 writes "The Kansas State Board of Education has changed the state science standards once again, this time to take out language questioning evolution. This turnaround comes fast on the heels of the ouster given this past election to the ultra-conservative Board members who originally introduced the language. 'Science' has also been re-redefined as 'a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations' (the word 'natural' had been previously stricken from the definition). If you'd like to see the new standards, a version showing all additions and deletions is available from the KS DOE's website (PDF)."

cancel ×

868 comments

Eternal Vigilance (5, Interesting)

RumGunner (457733) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038662)

I suspect that this probably wouldn't have happened in the first place if people in that area had bothered to participate in their local elections before being humiliated on an international scale.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (5, Insightful)

eviloverlordx (99809) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038704)

I suspect that this probably wouldn't have happened in the first place if people in that area had bothered to participate in their local elections before being humiliated on an international scale.

That's a problem when most people are scientifically illiterate. In this age of 2 second sound bites, saying 'goddidit' is easier than learning the facts.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18038922)

saying 'goddidit' is easier than learning the facts.

So what you're saying it that you're the retarded offspring of five monkeys that had butt sex with a retarded fish-squirrel?

Re:Eternal Vigilance (5, Informative)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038940)

Scientific illiteracy is something a lot of people in the US seem to be putting a lot of effort into.

This video is really disturbing: http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070206_evan gelicals_make_war_on_evolution/ [truthdig.com]

Especially the poster which says "God Says it. I believe it. That settles it."

"God Says it" (4, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039226)

I never completely understand why people argue "God says it". Even if people want to believe that god wrote the books of the bible, the christian bible was put together by humans. No one argues that the chapters put into the bible were selected by people. So god may have said lots of other things, but these people have chosen not to listen. Maybe another text which wasn't included describes evolution.

And if these people believe the bible was written by humans, then everything "god says" is hearsay and could be misquoted.

And let's not even get started on the fact that the bible Americans read has been translated. There are many phrases which can be translated multiple ways. Plus with the old testiment the English language can't properly represent the multiple meanings of Hebrew words, and so much is lost in translation.

Usefullness of science (4, Insightful)

DrYak (748999) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039182)

saying 'goddidit' is easier than learning the facts
...and is less useful.

Actually I'm not happy with their definition of science. I'm sure there'll be crackpot around there to say that "God" is part of the "natural process that drives things" and therefor He's divine presence is needed to explain phenomenons.

I think it'll be more meaningful to describes sciences as a series of models that humans have inventend that are designed to describe the world around us in a way that can be measured/checked (numerically, for exemple, in the case of physics), that can be proved/disproved (what ever your own deity say you should believe about the shape of the earth, that doesn't stop the newtonian physic to be rather good at predicting phenomenons happening on it's surface : object falling and being thrown around), and that can be used to predict the behaviour of some object (all the science used in engineering can be used to invent new technology by knowing in advance how they're supposed to work once build).
These models aren't necessarily perfectly exact, they are just good enough inside their scope (newtonian physic isn't good enough for very masses and high speeds. Einstein's physic is better and more precise in those cases).

In that perspective, when encountering complex phenomenons like evolution, scientific believes like Darwin's theory are a good interesting model for interpreting the facts that you discover (lots and lots of slightly different animals in archeologic discoveries, and if you put them together in chronological order, they seem to slowly transform from one specie to another. The monkey->ape->human evolution is a nice example) and that can make interesting prediction (you can't directly make an experiment to prove/disprove it. At least not as long as crackpots repeat that micro and macro evolutions are different. BUT you can predict that as we dig up more and more fossils, we'll fill the holes and get more steps that details in a better way the evolution).

Whereas if one's intellectually lazy and prefer to say "goddidit", one just stuck with this single explanation. Nothing useful can be made of it. To the question "What happens next", the only possible answer is "depend's on god's mood today" and that isn't very useful.

I think that these notions :
- science is descriptive of phenomenon,
- science puts quantities and classes on them,
- science can be proven and disproven (and mostly be proven to be accurate enough for some scope), and
- science may be useful to predict outcome of experiment and behaviour of inventions ...are better for the goal, rather than "only natural phenomenon are used in science".

Re:Eternal Vigilance (1)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038744)

Experience builds judgment. Poor judgment builds experience.

rj

Re:Eternal Vigilance (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038906)

You can catch more flies with sugar than with vinegar.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (3, Funny)

93,000 (150453) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039066)

He who laughs last is just a hand in the bush.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (0, Offtopic)

RailGunner (554645) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039188)

He who laughs last is just a hand in the bush.

Ozzy rules. \m/ \m/

Re:Eternal Vigilance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18039242)

She who has hand in bush should not be taken loosely.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (2, Insightful)

BendingSpoons (997813) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038760)

Well, all's well that ends well. A group of fools sought to impose their foolish views on others, they were thrown out of office, and their handiwork was undone. I'm happy with the result and not really too concerned that the initial unrest was caused by *gasp* inattention to school board elections.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (3, Funny)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038938)

and I would've gotten away with it TOO! If it hadn't been for you meddling kids!!!!!

that's right, in full audio [toonzone.net]

Re:Eternal Vigilance (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038986)

re: in full audio: hmmm foiled again... should check my links before posting ;-p

Re:Eternal Vigilance (2, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039162)

Who says it's ended? The far-right wingnuts who brought the anti-evolution standards in may be down for the round, but you can be sure that they're planning their next move. The only thing, in the end, which is going to win it is for the majority of the population to learn a little reality, so that these guy can be consigned along with the flat earthers to a laughable fringe. These guy didn't get where they are purely out of voter apathy. There's a lot of people out there who don't understand science at all, and biological evolution in particular, who can be swayed by slick con artists.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (3, Interesting)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038796)

That sounds so easy, but as impossible as it is to know the will of the president of our country ahead of time, you can at least look at his history and try to read the tea leaves. It's a million times more impossible to know what some local yahoo you've never heard of is going to do. All you can really do is vote them out when they do something totally braindead that makes it into the news. Such as redefining science. Or using your tax dollars to build a $500k skateboard park. etc.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (3, Funny)

Teresita (982888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038894)

You have to watch these local governments. In 1897 in the Indiana state house there was a War on Pi which almost made it equal to 3.20

Re:Eternal Vigilance (-1, Offtopic)

BendingSpoons (997813) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039104)

As a former skateboarder, I've got to say I'm a fan of municipal skateparks for a few reasons:
1. Most towns have municipal ordinances essentially prohibiting skateboarding anywhere but your driveway. Give the kids somewhere to go, it keeps them out of trouble.
2. Similar to the first, kids that get constantly hassled by police for skateboarding, yet have no officially approved place to skate, tend to develop a dismal view of law enforcement. It's never good to foster a disrespect for the law when you can otherwise avoid it.
3. I've never been to a township-operated park that didn't charge admission. Skateparks aren't *that* expensive to build, and I'd be willing to bet that most of them recoup their investment within 5-10 years. That's not counting the non-financial benefits, such as developing as sense of pride in your community.

vote "yes" for skateparks! (-1, Offtopic)

Crazy Man on Fire (153457) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039280)

My town has a free skatepark. I haven't skated for years. Wish I still did. Maybe I'll pick it back up. Anyway, $500k for a skatepark really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things. It gives the kids something to do, keeps them active and out of trouble, and probably increases property values because it is a draw for parents.

God Hates Kansas (5, Funny)

ReidMaynard (161608) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038670)

Look at all the tornados.

Mulberry Bush (1)

hachete (473378) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038690)

Here we go round the Mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
Here we go round the Mulberry bush on a cold and frosty morning

One year, the wind will change and Kansas will be stuck like that forever. I just hope it's the right way.

Re:Mulberry Bush (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18039152)

Is Mulberry Jenna's age? Or younger?

The future of America (0)

abscissa (136568) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038696)

This guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvyQRdlKiwI&NR [youtube.com]

The only good is knowledge, the only evil, ignorance.

Re:The future of America (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038774)

After watching that for five minutes, I can't tell if that guy's trying to be sincere or if the whole thing is satire. Scary stuff.
 

Re:The future of America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18038856)

Best argument in the history of rhetoric: (And I took 5 years of philosophy)

- If we evolved, then it was a matter of random chance.
- Random chance cannot create things like an eye

- If you believe that you were created through random chance, then
- You are a slave to chemical reactions

- If you are a slave to chemical reactions, then
- You cannot trust your thoughts.

- If you cannot trust your thoughts,
- Then you cannot believe that you can have a grasp of "Truth"

Ergo: You cannot both believe in evolution, and the possibility of knowing truth.

QED!!

Re:The future of America (5, Informative)

timster (32400) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039064)

If we evolved, then it was a matter of random chance.

Well, with such an incredibly incorrect first premise, I'm sure you can prove about anything.

Natural selection is not random.

Re:The future of America (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039248)

That's the problem with Creationism. You just can't tell which is satire and which is th real deal.

I did take the time to sit through the whole thing, and I find the ending conclusion most interesting. Is this guy claiming that Bush, a supposed evangelical Christian, is the anti-christ holding a position at the supposed center of all evil in the world? Normally these creationist try to show how scientists are evil, but this guy went right for the current whitehouse occupants. WTF? Makes me believe that it might be satire. But who knows.

-matthew

Re:The future of America (4, Funny)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038788)

I like his comment about if we come from monkeys, does that gives us the right to act like them?

Considering the way Creationists jump up and down and fling poo every time the word Evolution is used, I'd say his question has already been answered.

Re:The future of America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18038844)

"Considering the way Creationists jump up and down and fling poo every time the word Evolution is used, I'd say his question has already been answered."
Yeah. It's a good thing evolutionists don't do the same every time ID is mentioned.

I do.... (1)

CasperIV (1013029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038886)

I freak out every time I hear someone talk about "ID".... it means a user is in a database again and my day just started down hill.

Re:The future of America (1)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039304)

The only good is knowledge, the only evil, ignorance.

Can you support this? Pretty heavy thing you just said and you didn't give much evidence.

Church vs. State (1)

ZOMFF (1011277) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038708)

Apparently the line separating church & state is quite blurry these days...

Re:Church vs. State (1)

physicsboy500 (645835) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038754)

and in the spirit of the KC school board trials...

ramen to that!

Re:Church vs. State (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039250)

without their silliness dozens of people would never would have known the touch of his/her/its noodely appendage....

Great first FSM post!!!

Re:Church vs. State (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18038764)

It's not really Church vs. State, it's State vs. Ignorance. Most people who are against the theory of evolution don't understand it all that well, and as a result find it unsatisfying. If you reason about evolution with a half-baked version of the theory it's only natural that you'll find some holes.

If we could manage a separation of State and Ignorance, that would be great...

Re:Church vs. State (1)

jsgrahamus (610267) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039072)

The citizens of Kansas should be allowed to determine what their children learn - The latter are their children, not ours or anybody else's. And if they kowtow because of other people's opinions, well that says something about those parents. Too bad for the children. This topic really revolves around ignorance and control. The people in control of the educational systems have decided that evolution is no longer a theory; rather it is a law. And disrespect of that law is not to be tolerated. And they will ignore (the root of ignorance) any evidence or signs that perhaps their law is not as absolute as they maintain it is. As a parent I would have no problem with evolution being taught. However, I would want it taught as a theory. And I would also want the teacher to be able to present alternative theories of how this world came to be and evidences of the inability of evolution to explain natural phenomenom. The ability to admit that your pet theory is not capable of explaining some natural occurrences is what enables us as a people to advance in our understanding. Ignoring the obvious only holds us back.

Re:Church vs. State (2, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039172)


The citizens of Kansas should be allowed to determine what their children learn

By redefining "science" to believe in supernatural rubbish? Keep that stuff in Church.

Re:Church vs. State (1)

ZOMFF (1011277) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039234)

This topic really revolves around ignorance and control.


... which is exactly how the church typically works. Only call ignorance & control 'faith'. And I whole heartily agree with your idea of having it taught as theory. I took a Philosophy of Religion course in college which took this exact angle. It kept the class quite interesting without going overboard into the 'holy roller' aspect of most religion based courses.

Re:Church vs. State (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039240)

And back to tired old etymological fallacies. Scientists stopped used the term "law" in the early part of the 20th century. The usage prior to that makes "laws" and "theories" the same thing. It's just not used any more.>[? I guess we can say with some certainty that you certainly don't understand science.

Re:Church vs. State (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18039274)

You don't really know the difference between a scientific "theory" and "law". The "theory" of evolution is far better supported by the evidence than Newton's "laws" of motion. Actually, evolution is one of the most heavily supported facts in all of science. Nobody has a right to teach anyone's children falsehood.

Re:Church vs. State (1)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039198)

If we could manage a separation of State and Ignorance, that would be great...

Wait, I thought they were the same thing.

This quote still applies (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18038740)

From one of the links, quote in Nov 2005:

"This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that," said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat.

Computer Science . . . (3, Funny)

millisa (151093) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038748)

Henceforth, all activity and research in the field of computer science must be explained by natural phenomenom. The term 'bug' will use the September 9th, 1945 definition [wikipedia.org] and nothing else. Unnatural explanations such as missing semi-colon's and its ilk fall into the category of religion and a belief structure not cohesive with the true definition of science.

Re:Computer Science . . . (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038838)

So in other words, your god is Larry Wall?

Re:Computer Science . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18039010)

Indeed, as demonstrated by today's XKCD comic: http://xkcd.com/c224.html [xkcd.com]

Re:Computer Science . . . (4, Insightful)

Frequency Domain (601421) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038950)

You shouldn't believe a country's name as being a true description - "German Democratic Republic" (the former East Germany), "People's Republic of China", etc. Similarly, fields that feel a need to put the word "science" in their name often aren't - "Political Science", "Computer Science".

Re:Computer Science . . . (1)

Dirtside (91468) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039302)

Computer science is fundamentally just applied mathematics. Computer science is as much a science as mathematics is, for whatever that's worth.

No argument about political "science," though. Not sure what to call it, since it's the study of politics. Political Theory? Politicology?

Re:Computer Science . . . (1)

autophile (640621) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039202)

You have conflated two separate fields. Computer science is a branch of mathematics, which is science. Pure science, but science nevertheless. The examples you brought up (bugs, missing semicolons, and "its ilk") are features of computer programming, which is a branch of engineering.

--Rob

Re:Computer Science . . . (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039278)

Where did you ever get the absurd notion that mathematics is science?

Re:Computer Science . . . (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039236)

Damn. And I was going to blame all of my software's problems on divine intervention! Either that or aliens.

No more pirates? (1)

FMota91 (1050752) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038766)

Does this mean we don't need our pirate supporting overlord [venganza.org] anymore?

"ultra-conservative"? (5, Insightful)

BarnabyWilde (948425) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038776)

Regarding the so-called "ultra-conservative Board members":

Conservative belief does not necessarily intersect much with religion.

These were _ultra-religious_ board members.

Let's at least get that part right.

BWilde.
 

Re:"ultra-conservative"? (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039024)

You have to accept the fact that, in America, the Republican party has been in large part co-opted by ultra-religious interests. Fortunately, it seems that the Republicans are waking up to the fact that these people are not representative of the opinions of the majority of Americans, they do not care about many major Republican party ideals, and they are not only not worth persuing as a base of support, but actually detrimental to the party. I'm not a Republican myself, but if you are and you don't want to see your party taken over by religious funamentalists, please do what you can to keep these wingnuts out. Moderates of both sides, lets unite to keep the lunatic fringe in both our parties from taking over.

Quick... (1, Troll)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038780)


Quick... queue the "But science doesn't explain everything, there has to be a designer" kooks.

Re:Quick... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18038990)


Modded Troll by believers of retarded superstition everywhere.

On second thought (1)

gx5000 (863863) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038782)

I for one welcome our new flip flop masters.
For you see, it's getting harder to see if we really are in Kansas anymore...

good for Kansas (5, Insightful)

misanthrope101 (253915) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038794)

I think it's telling that every time the public finds out that a school board tried to undermine science education via an attack on mainstream scientific theories, the public votes them out immediately. It happened at Dover, and now in Kansas. The ID crowd only get the chance to promote their "alternative theory" when they keep quiet about what they intend to do, but as soon as they do it, the cat is out of the bag and they get voted out of office. Somehow they still think that they have grassroots support, but the movement only survives as long as they lie about it. People love talk about being more Godly and all that, but they don't want their state to be the laughingstock of the country.

Re:good for Kansas (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038874)

I think it's telling that every time the public finds out that a school board tried to undermine science education via an attack on mainstream scientific theories, the public votes them out immediately.

For now -- at least while this Board is in office. If another Board takes office and turns it back over they'll be the laughing stock again for two more years.

The only way to eliminate this is to end the discussion, once and for all, by saying that ID is *not* scientific and doesn't belong anywhere but theology and philosophy courses.

Re:good for Kansas (1)

envelope (317893) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038996)

The only way to eliminate this is to end the discussion, once and for all, by saying that ID is *not* scientific and doesn't belong anywhere but theology and philosophy courses.


I'm pretty sure that's what the judge said in the PA case. Only applies to that circuit for now, but I'd think its a pretty strong precedent for the rest of the country. /too lazy to search for links

Re:good for Kansas (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039186)

The only way to eliminate this is to end the discussion, once and for all, by saying that ID is *not* scientific and doesn't belong anywhere but theology and philosophy courses.


It's already been done in the Dover case. See the judges ruling [sciohost.org] (pdf document) starting with Section D. on page 10. Or, if you prefer a non-pdf format, see this link [talkorigins.org] at TalkOrigins which is the conclusion of the judge regarding ID.

Granted, the American Taliban won't stop their efforts at imposing their religious views on everyone else despite this and other rulings, but at least they can't claim that their ideas have already been ruled as religious, and not scientific, in nature.

Re:good for Kansas (2, Insightful)

blakestah (91866) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038908)

Somewhat more telling that people more interested in ID are also more interested in serving on school boards. What is it about evolution that makes people not interested in the future of their children's schools?

Re:good for Kansas (1)

envelope (317893) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039052)

I think its because people with an agenda to promote are more likely to want to get on the school board. Most mainstream folks accept evolution and the teaching of evolution in schools, and so are satisfied with the status quo.
Those with a gripe against what's going on in the schools are more likely to try to get control.

What? (1)

CasperIV (1013029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039096)

You're comparing people who have a religious belief in a concept to people who accept the more explained theory. It's apples and oranges, one is an agreement with a concept and the other is faith. Now, what are you using as your basis that people who agree with evolution do not have interest in the future of their children? If the majority of the country has accepted evolution, wouldn't that suggest the majority of those that participle on school boards agree with evolution?

Re:good for Kansas (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038916)

That's very true, but at the same time, the federal court system is being packed with exactly these kinds of people. And they're not subject to being voted out of office.

I just don't get it... (4, Insightful)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038810)

I don't understand why such a large portion of the Church is opposed to science and evolution.

Science is the endeavor to explain what can be oberved. It does this by creating models which explain current observations and predict future results. It then tests these models by setting up scenarios in which the predictions can be determined to be accurate. In short, from a Christian perspective it's an attempt to understand the universe God created and how it works. I can imagine no greater subject of study than that of the works of God.

Evolution is a scientific model. It looks at the current state of life, fossil records, and historical accounts and establishes a model of life which fits all thse observations. Each new finding tests the model, and it has several times been refined by new discoveries. The system of evolution is almost undeniably correct; it is difficult to argue that evolution can occur in the way it is described. The evolutionary history of various organisms is debateable, as there is always a chance that new findings will change the current version. That's how science works.

So many of my fellow Christians seem to think that evolution is an attack on us and our beliefs. It's not. It is simply the result of rational consideration of the facts at hand. Science is not (well, should not be) malicious and has (should have) no interest in attacking religion, as the existence of diety is currently outside the reach of science.

They also make the mistake of lumping everything they disagree with under the name "evolution". I've heard the Big Bang mentioned in discussions of evolution, even though it's part of a completely different field of science.

Re:I just don't get it... (4, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038914)

Heresy! We have a perfectly rational explanation. 6000 years ago God created the Earth. There were people on it and those people were bad. So He caused a flood and wiped out everyone but Noah's family. And now, generations later, we're the result of Noah's sons and daughters having sex with each other to repopulate the Earth. Now whether you believe in God or not, I'm sure you can agree that this is the most sensible explanation for Kansas.
 

Re:I just don't get it... (2, Funny)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039054)

Noah didn't have any daughters, at least they aren't mentioned. Get your facts straight: his grandkids were the incestuous ones, getting it on with their first cousins. His sons' wives' pedigrees aren't known, or I can't recall them being mentioned.

Tangent: first cousin incest isn't particularly risky and can be tolerated in the gene pool for several generations before it becomes an issue. With the genetic contributions of four families, it's not all that unrealistic.

Re:I just don't get it... (0)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039122)

And now, generations later, we're the result of Noah's sons and daughters having sex with each other to repopulate the Earth.

The Bible does not list Noah had any daughters. It does however list Noah and his wife, his sons and their wives.

You may make fun of it if you'd like, but at least don't misquote it. Otherwise, you're no different than the people you purport to be against.

Re:I just don't get it... (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039174)

The Bible does not list Noah had any daughters. It does however list Noah and his wife, his sons and their wives.
Good point. I must've been thinking of Adam and Eve.
 

Re:I just don't get it... (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038948)

So many of my fellow Christians seem to think that evolution is an attack on us and our beliefs. It's not. It is simply the result of rational consideration of the facts at hand. Science is not (well, should not be) malicious and has (should have) no interest in attacking religion, as the existence of diety is currently outside the reach of science.

There are plenty of Christians that believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is not to be questioned. When the Bible says that life started directly by God's hand and everything has been the same since he created it, they believe exactly that.

Now, other Christians, that aren't taught that the Bible is to be interpreted literally, might be able to understand as you do -- but that doesn't include *all* Christians.

Re:I just don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18038952)

You seem to have a solid grasp on science and rational thinking in general. How is it that you're still a Christian, given that religion is superstitious, irrational, and non-provable?

Atheist (1)

Tony (765) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039222)

You seem to have a solid grasp on science and rational thinking in general. How is it that you're still a Christian, given that religion is superstitious, irrational, and non-provable?

Because they are two different domains?

Science is about the naturalistic world, the world in which quarks dominate the very small, and gravity dominates the very large. It is about deep time, and deeper knowledge.

Religion explores the *why* of it all, the deeper meanings behind the quarks, and gravity, and the nature of thought and self-awareness. For some, it is the foundation of morality, which science has not fully addressed.

Science is about knowledge. Religion is about understanding.

(Note: I do not believe in God. There is much science does not answer, but human compassion and the desire to see the universe up close provides the only morality I need. But I understand where religion comes from. I just don't understand how folks turn religion into dogma.)

Re:I just don't get it... (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038978)

Everything you need to know is in the Bible. Everything else is temptation and devilry. Remember that Gal[ae]lio was arrested for using a 'diabolical instrument' (the telescope) and claiming that the earth revolved about the sun (heresy!)

Re:I just don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18039034)

I don't understand why such a large portion of the Church is opposed to science and evolution.

To give you a short answer: They see it as an assault on faith in God.

God asks us to have faith in his existence and in his world. Studying it and attempting to understand it can be seen as a refusal to place faith in God and instead placing faith in man. (In the form of rational thought, I guess - I won't claim to fully understand the reasoning.) So science causes a lack of faith in God (I guess) and is therefore evil.

In short: science is seen as indicating a lack of faith in God, and placing faith in God above all else is the most important aspect of Christian religions.

Re:I just don't get it... (1)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039146)

I guess I just don't see where science could be construed as a lack of faith. It's a desire to understand *how* the world works. If God wrote the laws of physics, shouldn't we consider learning and understanding the nature of those laws to be equivalent to studying the Bible? Both are the work of God.

Re:I just don't get it... (5, Insightful)

flynt (248848) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039062)

The reason is this.

If evolution is true, you'd agree that God did not create Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, right?

Well, that Adam and Eve story is the entire basis of Christianity, because that's where sin originated. If there is no original sin, then what was Jesus sent to save us from? If Jesus was just a man who was trying to preach love, he wouldn't be the savior of the world, whatever that means.

So that's why Christians have to not believe evolution. If they accept evolution, then the entire point of Christianity is called into question.

I agree completely with your points, I don't think scientists have an a priori "attack religion" mentality. If the observable data led people to believe that Christianity was true, of course scientists would believe it. A scientist is just someone who uses observation and experiments to get at the truth, not dogma.

Re:I just don't get it... (2, Insightful)

Bastian (66383) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039120)

The Christianity that you recognize reconciles easily with scientific discovery is not the Christianity practiced by Creationists.* This other form of Christianity includes a large amount of doctrine that simply cannot coexist with much of science, including evolutionary theory. Examples are: The world is 7,000 years old, humanity is the centerpiece of creation, the world as described in the Bible is the world as it has always been, etc.

Really, I think the most important chafing point is the understanding that humans are somehow special - created in God's own image, whereas that's usually associated with evolution is that we're an unremarkable (except by our own measure) midpoint in a process of random chance that has been happening for billions of years and will happen for billions more.

The second most important chafing point is that there is simply no way to reconcile evolution with Biblical literalism - to someone who is a Biblical literalist, the Bible is either true or it is false. It is God's word, and therefore must be 100% perfect - even one factual error, such as whether the earth is a few thousand or a few thousand thousand years old, calls the entire thing into question.

For this kind of Christian, evolution (and cosmology) is worse than an attack on their beliefs - it's an attack on the entire foundation for their understanding of the world.

*Just to put it on the table - Intelligent Design is a straw man. It's Creationism in a lab coat picked up at the local thrift store. The idea was cooked up shortly after Creationism was shot down by the US court as a way to try to submarine Creationism back into the school systems.

Re:I just don't get it... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039286)

I don't understand why such a large portion of the Church is opposed to science and evolution.

Science is the endeavor to explain what can be oberved. It does this by creating models which explain current observations and predict future results. It then tests these models by setting up scenarios in which the predictions can be determined to be accurate. In short, from a Christian perspective it's an attempt to understand the universe God created and how it works.

...without stipulating that God made it so.

The more stuff that science can explain, the less stuff that can fit under the catch-all explanation "God".

This wasn't such a big problem (in modern times), until science started explaining stuff in a way that directly contradicts a literal reading of the Bible. E.G. evolution & fossil records vs creation

Sad faith (5, Insightful)

Tiger Smile (78220) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038812)

Faith is great. It might well be the best of all human qualities. It has helped people survive the worst moments of life, and to go on when hope should have been lost.

But, faith itself can be twisted and misused. When faith is used as a tool to prevent people from using their god given gifts, then it's become a weapon. I have seen people use their faith to ignore what they have seen with their own eyes. I have seen faith used to prevent normal healthy inquiry. It is my opinion that this is the path to pure insanity.

If you except that God created man, and you also except that you were not consulted on God's plan and work habits, then you should be open to explanations as to the details of his creation. Was evolution part of God's plan? Most people admit that they do not know how God works, but some of those same people claim to know exactly how he does not work.

Scientist are only looking for the truth, and sometimes to be published. But I think they are truthful. I imagine that someone with a greater observance of what God has created and it's inner workings is much closer to God than someone who twists faith to blind themselves to God's wonders.

Re:Sad faith (5, Insightful)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039076)

I argue the opposite. Faith is a weakness. Faith leads people to accept their conditions and pray that it will get better rather than act. Faith leads people to accept conditions that are unacceptable.

Faith keeps women from leaving abusive husbands because the hope they'll see the light. Faith keeps people from speaking out against the government because they hope their God will intervene. Faith keeps people from enjoying the only life they know they have because they hope that the words in a particular book are true.

Our best quality isn't our ability to blindly accept conditions as they are because they might change, but to recognize the flaws in our condition right now through research and figure out a way to change the stuff we can. In fact, the ability to drastically modify our environment is what makes us a technological species.

Perhaps you're using a different definition of "faith" than I am.

The real news here (4, Informative)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038852)

The board also rewrote the standards' definition of science, specifically limiting it to the search for natural explanations of what's observed in the universe.
The previous board had redefined "science" as not being limited to "natural explanations". That is: the supernatural has a place in science.

Maybe we should go back to calling ourselves "natural philosophers" rather than "scientists".

Chuck's 198th birthday (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038880)

This is the 198th birthday week of Charles Darwin. Happy Birthday Charles.

What I've never understood (4, Insightful)

bhalter80 (916317) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038924)

I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to the question of why God could not have created man to evolve. He clearly created bacteria and virii to evolve. That we can witness on a daily basis as illnesses adapt to the drugs we use to treat them and become resistant. There is evidence that species have come and gone from this world, and that some have morphed into others (trying to use evolve here as much as possible). Why is it so inconceivable that man would have been made to adapt to his surroundings in similar ways?

Re:What I've never understood (1)

Matt Edd (884107) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039144)

Because there is no evidence for it. Scientists don't want to prove that God doesn't exist or that he isn't responsible for evolution but since you can't prove if he exists or had a hand in anything it becomes a non-issue. We (IAAS) aren't going to make up evidence but we aren't going to make any spiritual claims either. We deal in facts and want to keep it that way. When someone asks what my beliefs are I say that I would be an athiest if there was any proof God doesn't exist.

Home School / Education Choice (1)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038942)

Yet another solution that could easily be solved by Home School or Educational Choice.

You don't like your neighbors democratically deciding what religion your children should have or what type of job you should take or what your living arrangements should be or determining what kind of medical procedures you have. Why do you want your neighbors democratically deciding what to teach your kids?

Don't like your child learning / not learning about sex ed / evolution / intelligent design / Islam / Christianity? Want or not want your kid to have a homosexual teacher? That's your business and by allowing you to choose what kind of school (a liberal one or a conservative one or a religious one or a .... ) or deciding to educate the child yourself, then it is completely removed as a matter of political debate.

Re:Home School / Education Choice (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039176)

I think the people most interested in home schooling are people who do not want their children exposed to un-godly ideas such as evolution, science, rational thought etc and I think this is a very bad situation to foster.

Children brought up in this manner are totally controlled by their parents ideas of what is right or wrong and are only going to hear what their parents want them to hear only going to mix with people sanctioned by their parents. In the case of religiously inspired home schooling this means that by the time the children have grown up and join normal universities and get jobs they hold completely entrenched viewpoints and are not capable of assessing arguments which challenge their beliefs and upbringing. Really this is child abuse and shouldn't be allowed under any circumstances whatever the motivation, worthy or otherwise.

Re:Home School / Education Choice (1)

armb (5151) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039224)

> Don't like your child learning / not learning about sex ed / evolution / intelligent design / Islam / Christianity?

If you are that scared, why not go the whole way and have the kid lobotomised, so there's no chance whatsoever of it learning to disagree with you?

In Soviet Kansas... (-1, Offtopic)

charlieo88 (658362) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038954)

...monkeys evolve from you.

Don't misunderestimate the electorate (4, Interesting)

RichPowers (998637) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038960)

My local schoolboard faced a similar reversal after the ultra-conservative members tried pushing I.D. into our classrooms. The public hearing on the matter was a hoot though. The district's science instructors, a few PhDs, and even some students all went on record as saying the whole thing was a dumb idea. Oh, and the fiscal conservatives were outraged to learn that the district spent $10,000+ on legal fees.

The next schoolboard election saw a higher voter turnout and the pro-ID board members were ousted, replaced by moderates.

All this in a county that votes 65% Republican. If only voters had paid attention during the first election hehe

It will happen again (1, Troll)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 7 years ago | (#18038992)

Fundamentalists are, by definition, incapable of learning. They keep doing the same thing over and over again, no matter how many times it fails. Some other group of fundamentalists will fool the people of Kansas into electing them and, being utterly incapable getting it through their thick skulls that the people of Kansas don't want creationism in their public school science classes, they will try to get this crap pushed through again. And they will subsequently be utterly shocked when they are voted out of office in the following election, just like the last two groups of fundies were when they pulled the same thing.

"flock of dodos" documentary (2, Informative)

peter303 (12292) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039044)

I saw it on Darwin's birthday five days ago. Its a Michael Moore kind of humor piece poking fun at the evolution debate making the rounds of science museums and film festival (Washington DC screening Thursday). The maker is former Harvard paleontologist turned full time film maker. The film claims the ID people are wrong and the scientists are terrible communicators.

But its obvious! (2, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039102)

Eviolution is wrong. We were all created as part of an experiment by aliens. The experiment has since been abandoned.

This argument is consistent with Intelligent Design. I wonder if the ID proponents would be happy about that being taught in schools.

So um...tags.. (3, Funny)

Unlikely_Hero (900172) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039112)

Not that I am questioning the wisdom of the fine system/people/whatever that determines which tags for a story are put on the front page but I fail to see how "buttsexwithfishsquirrels" is really..um...relevant.
In closing
"WTF PEOPLE?!"

What what with what what? (1)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039118)

I'm sorry, I must've missed the meme-o on this one--what the hell does butt-sex with fish-squirrels have to do with evolution?

Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18039212)

This is the most intellegently designed piece of legislation ever to come out of Kansas.

"the ultra-conservative Board "... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18039214)

...who "ousted" the ultra-liberal board to obtain office, and no doubt will do so again.

The liberal is good at making noise, but hopelessly incompetent at management.

Okay, so.. (2, Insightful)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039228)

John Calvert, a retired attorney who helped found the group, accused the board of promoting atheism. And Greg Lassey, a retired Wichita-area biology teacher, said the new standards undermine families by "discrediting parents who reject materialism and the ethics and morals it fosters."
Perhaps there's something I'm not getting here, but if this supposedly "undermines" families, is he advocating that parents should decide what their children think instead of letting them settle on what they find most reasonable?

I guess this guy is going all out with his conservatism.

shmevolution (1)

Essequemodeia (1030028) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039244)

Welcome to 1859, Kansas. Hugs, mwah.

Why must evolution and creationism be seperate? (2, Interesting)

sherriw (794536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039272)

I never understood why creationists are so anti-evolution. Is it so inconceivable that God had a hand in the evolution of humans? Sounds more realistic than 'poof' one man and one woman. All done.

I think evolution is a scientific fact and that it is just miraculous enough to possibly be god-inspired. Why do these fools have to fight about this? Oh yeah, because if you don't believe the bible was faxed to us word-for-word from heaven, then you're going straight to hell. *sigh*

child abuse? (-1, Troll)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18039298)

When back-water places like Kansas abandon science in favor of superstition, my first reaction is to think "if they want their own mini-Dark Age, let them have it."

But this is one area where "think of the children" actually applies. It isn't the fault of these children that their parents want to stunt their intellectual and economic growth! Trying to hold innocent kids back from reaching their full potential is borderline abuse.

Additionally, in a Democracy, the people rule. You don't want your rulers to be uneducated nit-wits!

It really is the duty of every ethical person to fight against this sort of treatment of children. Brainwashing supernatural beliefs in to children is an evil act.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...