The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
More Stealth Creationism in Texas
littlegreenfootballs.com — At New Scientist, Lawrence Krauss looks at another attempt by the Discovery Institute to push “intelligent design” pseudo-science into classrooms, this time in Texas: Commentary: Stop creationists undermining school science. The most recent and blatant example of the sorry condition...
hitcharide- 17 diggs
- digg it
- hitcharide, on 07/01/2008, -11/+3Stealth creationism??? They have to be joking! They call intelligent design "pseudo science," but it's no worse or less provable than the evoution crapola they insist on forcing down our throats, to the exclusion of any and all other ideas in a very forward way of censorship. Who exactly made these guys kings? What are they afraid of...is their position so weak and indefensible that they can't afford to tolerate an apposing viewpoint? And look at how little respect is shown for the difference of opinion; pretty arrogant behavior for a bunch of people with few or no answers themselves. I suspect there must be a ton of money involved somewhere, and someone stands to lose a lot of it if they can't stamp out any mention of intelligent design. The louder these guys scream, the more suspect their position becomes, and the more they try to silence other opinions, the weaker theirs becomes.
- DreadPirate, on 07/01/2008, -0/+12Oh give it a break, hitch. There's more real science behind evolution than there ever will be behind creationism, intelligent design, or whatever else you want to call it this week. Just because people want to avoid having their children dumbed down even more than public school already manages does not mean there is a "conspiracy".
People would fight just as hard to avoid having the "flat earth" theory taught in school - it's equally stupid and has just as much science behind it.- hitcharide, on 07/01/2008, -8/+1Now see, that's just not right. Why do you call it "dumbed down?" I agree there is some science in evolution, and they have some theories that fit...note I said THEORIES, no proven facts (refer to the missing link, for example.) I don't see any creationists getting as worked up over this issue as I do evolutionists, but mostly I'm irritated by the lack of tolerance, by the closemindedness, and by the sheer NOISE that the evolutionists are making. They are entitled to their theories...they can call it science....they can call it global warming with an enchilada on top for all I care, but the simple fact is scientists (and many others) have great difficulty with things they cannot explain. It's arrogance on the part of some, to not be able to admit their shortcomings, so they feel the need to berate and belittle those of us who believe in intelligent design. Last, I'd love to give it a break...I'll stop commenting on it just as soon as charles stops posting all the whiny, incessant drivel against creationists. I respect his beliefs, I respect his ideas, but I do not plan to accept the complete lack of respect for other ideas and thoughts without comment.
- custal, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7> note I said THEORIES, no proven facts
A theory IS a proven fact. Case closed.
Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. - gordonj, on 07/01/2008, -0/+9Hitch,
If you agree that there is some science in evolution, could you point out the part that isn't science?
"scientists (and many others) have great difficulty with things they cannot explain"
All science starts with something that cannot be explained. It is the nature of science to explain things in natural terms. I feel the main people who have problems with things that can't be explained are people who try to attack evolutionary theory. You yourself just included a "God of the gaps" argument with your comment about referring to a missing link. (Which missing link? Are you aware that if a "missing link" was found, it would no longer be missing? Any single creature that ever lived on the planet has the potential to be a transitional species.) The fact that there are gaps in the fossil record in no way invalidates the theory of evolution.
The issue here is not what you believe, but what should be taught in science classrooms. As ID does not fall under the definition of science, it should not be taught in science class. Teach it in religion class. If you want people to stop making negative comments about creationists, then you need to stop creationists from trying to undermine science with a get out clause that allows their literal interpretation of the bible in science class, otherwise known as intelligent design. - ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5@custal
Actually, it would be more accurate to say that a Scientific Theory is based on MANY facts, but the Theory itself is a framework to explain a phenomenon or group of related phenomena.
In either case, you are correct in that he has no idea what he is talking about - a Scientific Theory, like the Theory of Evolution or Relativity, does not fit into the layman's hierarchy of certainty (hypothesis->theory->fact).
- bosssmiley, on 07/01/2008, -0/+8"Who exactly made these guys kings?"
Peer-reviewed, independently verified testing of their claims against the evidence did that. They will be dethroned as soon as a more durable (in terms of standing up to *testing*) idea comes along.
Science: the only worldview that advances through the overthrow of its' own assumptions.
tangential: never thought I'd digg a littlegreenfootballs article. Funny old world. - Dimensio, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6"Stealth creationism??? They have to be joking! They call intelligent design "pseudo science," but it's no worse or less provable than the evoution crapola they insist on forcing down our throats, to the exclusion of any and all other ideas in a very forward way of censorship. "
No scientific theory is "proveable". Your objection is based upon a false premise; Intelligent Design is ommitted from science discussions because it is not science. If you disagree, please demonstrate that "Intelligent Design" is science.
- DreadPirate, on 07/01/2008, -0/+12Oh give it a break, hitch. There's more real science behind evolution than there ever will be behind creationism, intelligent design, or whatever else you want to call it this week. Just because people want to avoid having their children dumbed down even more than public school already manages does not mean there is a "conspiracy".
- hitcharide, on 07/01/2008, -8/+3Hey, just as a sidenote, I'd like everyones opinion on this one....personal opinion mind you, let 'er rip. Am I stupid for believing in intelligent design? Not educated enough? Ignorant? Bitterly clinging to my guns and religion? Am I to swap one belief for another just because some other people say so? Am I not entitled to my own opinion. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I take that part of the Bible literally about the creation of the earth and heavens. (I know, getting all fundamentalist up in here, but just for example guys.) Does the Bible predate all our discussions on evolution? I know just because a thing was believed in the past doesn't mean it holds true now (like when scientists told us you couldn't break the sound barrier, or that nothing moved faster than the speed of light, or the earth was flat,) but am I to throw out that historical reference just because someone else says so, and has no convincing facts to prove otherwise? Am I wrong to back my strongly held beliefs, just as the evolutionists do? I'm willing to accept and respect someone elses belief in some other theory, but am I not entitled to that same respect? Granted, I don't put much stock in l. ron hubbards space alien psychobabble, nor do I believe as farrakhan does that an evil black scientist created the white race 6000 years ago, but I have to respect their beliefs if I am to expect any respect for mine. Let's hear it......
- TheCatsPants, on 07/01/2008, -0/+9As far as I know "nothing moved faster than the speed of light" is still true. If you feel that all the evidence we have is insufficient proof to accept natural selection, fine. You can believe whatever you want, but until ID is a theory rather than an idea, it is not science and shouldn't be taught in a science class setting.
It's a bit confusing when in one post you call evolution "crapola", then say you want ID to be given the same respect? I'd be interested to hear what your ID theory is before I can give an opinion.- custal, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6Even though "idea" starts with 'id' ...
Intelligent Design is no idea but religious superstition. No matter that creationists and/or proponents of ID say otherwise.
- custal, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6Even though "idea" starts with 'id' ...
- Cheezo, on 07/01/2008, -6/+1I think we have been asking the wrong question...
evolutionary theory is kosher, no problem...
do you teach cause and effect in science class? yes or no
every effect has a cause?
what then was the first cause?
scientific infinite regress? that's fine...- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7"every effect has a cause?"
No. Look up quantum randomness some time. Not all events are deterministically causal. A good example of this is radioactive decay - we can give you odds on whether or not a particular atom of a radioactive substance will decay in a given time frame, but when that atom does decay is a truly random event. Truly random events have no cause.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7"every effect has a cause?"
- Cate320, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7If you actually take an Evolution course, or even read a textbook about it, and still feel that way, come back to us. If you don't know anything about the subject but yet still "choose to believe" then yes, you are ignorant.
- Dimensio, on 07/01/2008, -0/+8Please define "intelligent design", and explain the evidence that exists for it. Without a definition and established supporting evidence stated, it is impossible to discern your intelligence based upon your acceptance of the concept, as you may be aware of facts that others may not have yet observed.
- TheCatsPants, on 07/01/2008, -0/+9As far as I know "nothing moved faster than the speed of light" is still true. If you feel that all the evidence we have is insufficient proof to accept natural selection, fine. You can believe whatever you want, but until ID is a theory rather than an idea, it is not science and shouldn't be taught in a science class setting.
- Cate320, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5Just out of curiosity, what are the requirements in Texas for teachers to be certified to teach High School Biology?
I did a little research on the Texas State Board of Education website and from my understanding, you have to have a Bachelor's Degree in ANY field and take a simple test in the subject matter to become certified. Is this correct?
I also read the list of "Things a teacher needs to know" (AKA the stuff they are tested on) and it was basically things I learned in HS Biology. Now, if this is correct and the accepted passing mark on this test is less than 100%, that would imply that the teachers (at least beginning ones) actually don't know all of the material they are supposed to be teaching.
There is something wrong with that.
In comparison, I looked up the NYS teaching requirement laws and teachers are required to major in their chosen subject for their Bachelor's Degree, as well as take a certification test.
Now, in HS, all of my teachers had Masters degrees in their chosen fields *at least* (a few had PhDs). Actually, I queried my chemistry teacher once about it and he said that a Masters was the NYS requirement for the HS level. I couldn't find evidence of that so it was possibly changed?
I can't help but wonder if the states having these "Should we allow ***** 'science' in schools?" debates would have this problem if they had stricter requirements for their teachers.
I can't really see someone with a Biology degree willing to teach ID. You might find a few but SURELY not a significant amount. I most certainly wouldn't.
(BTW, anyone familiar with the Texas and/or New York education requirements, feel free to enlighten me if I'm erroneous in my findings)- Coven, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3I looked into the NYS education requirements recently. You are correct about needing a masters. There are programs available, where you teach at a school in a bad neighborhood while you work towards your masters in the subject. They pay you full teachers salary AND pay your tuition. NYC is desperate for teachers at this point and will take what they can get. You still need at least a 3.0 GPA with your bachelor's before you're accepted into the program though.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is