Paul Krugman's got a good analysis of what's going on here in today's NY Times.

"I once joked that if President Bush said that the Earth was flat, the headlines of news articles would read, "Opinions Differ on Shape of the Earth." The headlines on many articles about the intelligent design controversy come pretty close."

Christopher wrote:This is not how science works. You don't give equal time to ideas that are clearly not equal. There is no debate in the scientific community whether or not evolution took place, only about some of the minor details involved in evolution (punctuated equilibrium vs. slow continual change, etc). Let me repeat that: THERE IS NO REAL DEBATE IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY BETWEEN EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM. The figures of scientists (and I'm talking real scientists, not foot doctors who decided to study outside their field and obscure their credentials, or "scientists" who purchased their academic letters from unaccredited degree mills) who believe in some sort of creationism or intelligent design is something like less than 1%. Don't be mistaken, this is a cultural debate, not a scientific one.

i agree this shouldn't be brought up in biology class, but sociology/history class. creationism holds no ground in the scientific field, but the results of people believing in it are pretty staggering and for that reason alone creationism merits to be learned. also i don't think bush was saying that creationism should be brought up in the scientific community which is what seems to be making you mad.

also in your big rant you said there's no real debate in scientific community between evolution and creationism and then immediately say the number of 'real' scientists who believe in it is 'something like less than 1%'. that's still a lot of scientists, and it seems like a 'real debate' to me, albeit an outweighed one.

Christopher wrote:This is dead-on. As ridiculously stupid as the right is, the one genius they possess is how to sell their ideologies to the masses for acceptance. This whole "Aw schucks, intelligent design has nothin' to do with God...we just want to be fair with ideas!" tactic is pure bullshit. Part of the right's genius in marketing nonsense to the public is to do it in baby steps. This is one of those baby steps. And since when-the-fuck have they ever cared about things like "fairness," anyway? PURE BULLSHIT. They have an agenda, and they'll make it happen no matter what it takes or how long it takes.

i think it would be more effective to show kids some of the alternatives such as creationism in sociology class, and let them know how a bunch of people believed in it and how it's got a bunch of ideas that don't really make any sense at all and it was eventually shut down by science. you seem to want to ban any mention of creationism altogether, which, in my opinion, makes it seem more like a real threat than anything else. the way to expose things like creationism for the ridiculous concept it is, is by telling people what it is about and why it doesn't make sense. i believe that anyone with common sense will believe in evolution of creationism, and i think that's why it's accepted by a majority of people now, compared to even as recent as 5 generations ago.

For a perspective on how tolerant and even-handed the "intelligent design" crowd can be, please read this essay, written by my fiancee about her experiences teaching science in Texas. Please keep in mind this is college level science, not grade school or middle school, to supposedly intelligent people.

http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9611/evolution.html

Also keep in mind -- this all happened in our esteemed president's home state. Yikes.

Mark Lansing wrote:For a perspective on how tolerant and even-handed the "intelligent design" crowd can be, please read this essay, written by my fiancee about her experiences teaching science in Texas. Please keep in mind this is college level science, not grade school or middle school, to supposedly intelligent people.

http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9611/evolution.html

Also keep in mind -- this all happened in our esteemed president's home state. Yikes.

wow, mark, that's fucking scary. i wonder when the south will figure itself out.

davesec wrote:also in your big rant you said there's no real debate in scientific community between evolution and creationism and then immediately say the number of 'real' scientists who believe in it is 'something like less than 1%'. that's still a lot of scientists, and it seems like a 'real debate' to me, albeit an outweighed one.

Really? 1% is a "real debate" to you? One-fucking-percent? There's probably a higher percentage of scientists that believe in goddamn unicorns than creationism. Should we teach about unicorns, too? Does the democracy of beliefs really prevail over scientific method? This is a very stupid path to take.

davesec wrote:you seem to want to ban any mention of creationism altogether, which, in my opinion, makes it seem more like a real threat than anything else.

...and you seem to not be aware of the real issue here. The people advocating for intelligent design/creationism in schools want it in the SCIENCE class. That's the problem. I'm not advocating for the banning of any subject to be discussed. I don't care if you study creationism in a religious studies class, or sociology class, or dumb-shit-people-believe-to-be-filed-alongside-Phrenology class...but it does not belong in a science class.

Actually, outside of a Religions of the World (and all of their various cosmologies) class, Christian creationism shouldn't be taught in public schools at all, ever.

Wtf?

Christopher wrote:Really? 1% is a "real debate" to you? One-fucking-percent? There's probably a higher percentage of scientists that believe in goddamn unicorns than creationism. Should we teach about unicorns, too? Does the democracy of beliefs really prevail over scientific method? This is a very stupid path to take.

i was just pointing out the contradiction, and probably being too literal. yes it is a 'real' debate if there are two sides.

davesec wrote:...and you seem to not be aware of the real issue here. The people advocating for intelligent design/creationism in schools want it in the SCIENCE class. That's the problem. I'm not advocating for the banning of any subject to be discussed. I don't care if you study creationism in a religious studies class, or sociology class, or dumb-shit-people-believe-to-be-filed-alongside-Phrenology class...but it does not belong in a science class.

i am not talking about the people advocating creationism in general, i am talking about bush which is what i think the whole subject is about. i was saying for all we know bush just wants people to learn briefly about creationism in sociology or something. that's all. and i AGREE with you that it shouldn't be discussed in science class. i've said that like 3 times so far. then you lost your shit and got tangled up in your own crusade against creationism and seem to still be spouting little bits and pieces of it in your posts.

danmohr wrote:

stewie wrote:Someone show me scientific proof that God created this planet, and I'll happily let it get taught to my kids. Until then, keep it in the religion lesson.

Trust me - I'm on your side. The problem is that I can't show you any scientific proof that God didn't create the universe.

The problem with your proposal is that there are infinite numbers of theories on this topic that can't be proven wrong, because there's just no practical way to ever prove them. This opens the door for any crackpot theory to be taught, just because it can't be proven wrong.

I'm not saying that kids should be isolated from the creationism vs. evolution debate, but let's just do it in the proper arena: the sociology/religion classes.

Having it masquerade as science is bizarre, ridiculous and ultimately damaging to all involved.

ironyengine wrote:

george bush, the actual person and not the fake account wrote:"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting — you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

I think this is the first time I have ever agreed with something this man said.

The appropriate follow-up question for our idiot President should have been:

So, do you approve of the teaching of the biological origins of homosexuality? The Marxist perspective on capitalism? What about the theory that the holocaust didn't happen? The idea that the earth is hollow and the sun is a reflection of the burning core? These clearly fall under the umbrella of "different ideas."

Hee hee!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/



Note: that's a pair of dinosaurs walking onto Noah's Ark. Dinosaurs! Dinosaurs chasing the gazelles around the boat! Noah loses an arm! Dogs and cats sleeping together, mass fucking hysteria!

[quote]The truth-telling begins in the lobby, where guests come face to face with a pair of young T. rex dinosaurs, living alongside Adam’s children.
...
Most people think that T. rex has always been a meat eater. At the Creation Museum, guests will learn the truth about his original diet.

As a result of Adam’s sin, the terror of T. rex was unleashed on the world.

An adult T. rex let loose in Corruption Valley: “Look, don’t blame God for my ferocious appetite. God originally made us to eat plants (Gen. 1:30), but Adam’s sin brought a curse upon the whole world.â€