Mar 09 2008
Prev/Next Posts: « Politreks || Armageddon sick of Shuttle hoaxes »
Oklahoma: One Step from Doom
The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed a bill that says that a student can receive a passing grade in an Earth Science class if they say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Earth an hour ago, and then planted false memories into every single living creature on Earth to make it seem like they’ve been around longer.
Of course, that’s not the intent of the bill. The intent is that a student can say the Earth is 6000 years old and still get a passing grade. The bill itself says that a student cannot be graded down if they say that what they are being taught interferes with their religious beliefs.
Specifically, the bill states:
A school district shall treat a student’s voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint, if any, on an otherwise permissible subject in the same manner the district treats a student’s voluntary expression of a secular or other viewpoint on an otherwise permissible subject and may not discriminate against the student based on a religious viewpoint expressed by the student on an otherwise permissible subject.
It’s the "otherwise permissible subject" phrase that’s sticky. That can easily be interpreted as meaning tests, besides just normal classroom discussion.
For a long time, I have been disquieted by the fact that many people want to give patently ridiculous ideas as much standing as reality. One problem with this is that once you open the door to fantasy, any and all flavors of it can walk on through, as in the example above. But it also elevates fantasy to the same level as reality, and that is simply wrong.
I taught a few classes back when I was a grad student. If someone had answered a question on a test saying the Earth was 6000 years old, I would have marked it as incorrect. That’s because — and sit down for this breaking news — that answer is wrong. The student could complain, they could take it to the dean, the president, the Supreme Court for all I care — I wouldn’t have backed down. Wrong is wrong.
I don’t care what your religious belief is, there are some things that are simple facts. An object with mass has gravity. A lump of lithium dropped into water will create heat and hydrogen gas. An accelerating charged particle will emit radiation. These are facts. It doesn’t matter what you believe: reality is that which, when you go to sleep, doesn’t go away.
What I find most ironic about this legislation — and there is a rich, rich field of irony to choose from — is that it was passed by conservatives, people who no doubt would rail against political correctness and relativism (for example, the bill’s primary author, Sally Kern, has spoken clearly about her being against "the gay lifestyle" — she even compares being gay to cancer), yet this is exactly what this legislation is all about. The problem here is that they are trying to legislate relativistic reality. And that’s simply wrong.
And it’s not like they have to go far to see what a disaster this bill will create: Texas is already in a peck o’ trouble for passing a similar law.
This bill still has to pass Oklahoma’s state Senate before it becomes a law. If that happens, Oklahoma will have taken a long stride back into the Dark Ages. I’ll be honest: if I were an employer, or a University recruiter, and the bill becomes law, I would look very skeptically at any application that came to my desk from a student who graduated in Oklahoma. That makes me sad, but that is the reality Oklahoma is aiming toward.
For more about this horrid bill, check out Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education. Also, evidently this bill will also allow the straightforward teaching of religion in school. Mainstream Baptist has something to say about that.
Hat tip to ERV.
HEY!!! Careful what you say about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be branded a blasphemer
Hail , the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!
Obviously you need the touch of his noodley appendage!
Maddening.
Then again, if you look on the bright side, I suppose Americans will have considerably more job security with an education system such as this. Well… For a time anyway.
The bill has not come to a vote yet in the House, it’s just made it out of committee. I’ll be contacting my representative about it ASAP.
“”reality is that which, when you go to sleep, doesn’t go away.”"
Some scientists might dispute that
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
I don’t understand what the concern is. Like Dan said above, there will be less competition for science and technology jobs. This is a bonanza for the rest of the country.
So somebody studying mathematics could take the biblical value for pi when working out the area of a circle and they would could be marked correct?
I don’t want to be using anything designed by graduate engineers if that is the case - creationist aeronautical engineers… we’re doomed.
I wasn’t aware that this law had been passed in TX. It’s hard to keep up with all the dumbfoolery here.
Bad Albert: Yes, all this means less competition for science jobs. That’s why non-Americans like me are dominating research in physics at US universities. Doesn’t that make you proud of your country?
Dave, the original quote is:
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
Philip K. Dick (who pretty much went crazy towards the end of his life).
I’m not American so every time I hear the word Oklahoma I see Steve Martin running around with a pot on his head shouting “Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma…”
The good news is that homophobes like Sally Kern are a dying breed. Across the board acceptance of the gay lifestyle (adoptions, benefits, civil unions, even marriage) is growing, particularly amongst young people. We may be 20 years behind the rest of the civilized world (the Conservative Party leader in the UK, no less, just said he was “thrilled” for a gay parliamentary colleague who has just announced he is getting hitched).
And where stupid prejudices are on the wane, there is less need to keep the populace stupid so that they will continue to believe in your stupid causes.
Sure it may take another generation or two, and there will be other reversals, but in the end America will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, hopefully before the rest of the world leaves it!
If this bill passes in the OK legislature and other states start adopting similat laws, I’m afraid what will happen in the US will be as what happened in Italy in the early 1600’s. The pursuit of scientific study was stifled in Italy when Galileo among others was censured by the Roman Catholic Church. The result of this was that the next great scientific discoveries came from northern Europe and other places where that church had no or little sway.
Scientific study is being ‘chased’ out of the US by laws as those being proposed in OK and other states and by lack of support and funding by the present White House occupant and others of his ilk.
The US used to be a haven for those who wanted to learn science. The very good and great minds used to flock to the US. However, I’m afraid this trend will reverse if it hasn’t already started and the US will become a backwater for scientific study!
I think that’s reading a bit more into the phrase than is there. “Otherwise permissible” does not necessarily include tests. Plus, the problem for Young Earth Creationists is that they have to show (as they would for any scientific theory) a valid mechanism to explain why there’s every indication that the earth is billions of years old and the universe even older.
This leads us into a Catch-22 for Young Earth Creationists: If, in fact, “otherwise permissible” applies to tests (a worst-case example), then it only does so if it’s a religious belief. But the Young Earth Creationists insist it’s not purely a religious belief. Therefore, the only way for the bill to apply is for them to admit that their conviction is that the earth is only a few thousand years old is a purely religious belief - which the Young Earth Creationists won’t do.
Nor would the bill affect Old Earth Creationists, for whom all the evidence that the earth is billions of years old causes nary a blip. And anyone who tries to slip by a “God created it” for an answer can be met with a missed question and an jotted note: We are discussing *how* it happened, not *who* did it.
Coming soon to a supreme court near you.
And now a message to the last few of you (Ron) Paulites. Paul’s agenda was to achieve precisely this. Place more emphasis on state’s right of self determination, so that it breaks the country down to tidy little morsels where the religious right could impose their will well under the radar. If you didn’t see this coming, well, I hope the kool aide tasted sweet at least.
Except for the fact that candidates like George W. Bush will keep being elected with the help of people from states like these. Just look at the way McCain has been pandering to exactly this type of people (i.e. John Hagee) in the past few weeks.
These people also elected nutjob James Inhofe to the U.S. Senate. He played a major part in blocking any sensible efforts to tackle environmental issues while he was in the majority and would abolish the EPA if he could.
Unfortunately, keeping Oklahoman’s stupid by ruining their chances of a decent education, doesn’t help anyone in the long run.
As an Oklahoma Republican, I can proudly state that I have not once voted for Mr. Inhofe for any political office including his Senate or House campaigns, since as the OP so eloquently put it, he’s a nutjob.
My wife has been to the Superfund area around Pitcher, and anyone who doesn’t think buying those poor people out of their homes is the right thing to do is an idiot.
Let’s be clear on this issue: what the legislators are doing is not trying to pass an “any view is acceptablw” type of equality; they want to legislate specifically for their brand of conservative Xianity. They no more want the FSM or Hinduism taught is the classroom than they do Catholicism or (shock! horror!) purely materialist science (which they mistakenly conflate with atheism). This is an attempt to crowbar their own religious beliefs into the classroom. Because they’re the only ones who are right, and everyone else is wrong, don’tcha know?
What I read in this bill is that they are trying to protect kids who have had an unfortunately religious upbringing from being penalised academically. I don’t necessarily think that that is negative.
But Richard, when a student has learned something that is wrong, a good teacher corrects them, and doesn’t give them a pass simply because they were sadly failed by their last teacher.
Otherwise, how would we even learn something so simple as correct spelling? (Oh wait, this is teh intarnwebs, I forget myself.)
Part of our job, especially for those of us who have chosen to be science teachers, is to expose students to the evidence that allows them to see their misconceptions for what they are.
That the Earth is 6000 years old may be a religious “truth” to some (note the quotes of sarcasm there), but in a science class it’s just plain wrong, and the sooner we fix it, the better.
I don’t live in OK or TX . A few months ago I hadn’t even given the entire creationists movement much thought. I believed the issue had come to a justly deserved demise years ago. Then I began to see and hear such stupidity in my own community. It is very disturbing to see this trend increasing and once again becoming a political issue.
There seems to be a growing inability to cope with reality among the American populace. Note everything from the creationists , the intelligent designers , to programming disputing the effects of the greenhouse effect , to shows such as UFO Hunters , Ghost Hunters and Monsterquest that ponder the incredible wthout skepticism . Some groups of people seem so afraid of progress - fearful of the speed at which the world is changing - that they hide within belief systems that offer comfortable solutions but which lack logic and attack those institutions which they see do use logic and evidence to determine the truth . In an ever increasing materialistic world some seem to blame the very science which has delivered us from many diseases , given us once unimagined luxuries , has helped feed the hungry and even tempts us with the lure of the stars as the cause of all evil plaguing modern society.
I fear the fearful . I fear the ignorant. I fear the world these people would make for my children. I fear a world carved from the darkness of small minds.
We can not win a battle of wits againist the witless but we can teach , share , vote , and above all openly demonstrate the power of tolerance and open-mindedness. If the creationists , the ufologists and others can cling so passionately to their beliefs then why shouldn’t those who love reality just the way it is .
America truly needs knights of science to crusade just as strongly as do these serpents of untruth.
His holy noodliness touched me, and I partook of his righteous sauciness today!
“He touched me, with one of his many noodly appendages x2
and oh the sauce that floods my pasta bowl… He touched me and made me full…”
Also, seriously, if you think Ron Paul had a hidden agenda….Oh never mind… Let’s just say, he was the least of your worries. Think “Mike Huckabee…”
Man, I wish my school had this policy.
I once didn’t have a clue about the correct answer in a math test, so I attempted to prove that any number is equal to every other number thus:
3 = 3
Therefore: 3 - 3 = 0 (by subtracting 3 from both sides)
Therefore: 3(0) = 0 (factorise)
Therefore: 3 = 0/0 (divide both sides by zero)
Also …
7 = 7
Therefore: 7 - 7 = 0
Therefore: 7(0) = 0
Therefore: 7 = 0/0
Thus: 3 = 0/0 and 7 = 0/0
Therefore: 3 = 7
Since this works for any two numbers, my arbitrary answer of 7 must be equal to the correct answer, (whatever that may be). Therefore I am right and should be marked correct for that exam question.
If only my teacher had been a Creationist, I might have gotten away with it.
(And yes, the first two steps are completely unnecessary. But they help to baffle the mathematically challenged).
So I can pass human biology if I say that babies are brought by the stork or found under gooseberry bushes?
Whoops. Missed a step …
7 = 7
Therefore: 7 - 7 = 0
Therefore: 7(1-1) = 0 (factorise)
Therefore: 7(0) = 0 (simplify)
Therefore: 7 = 0/0
You’d be surprised how long this red herring can keep people busy for. I’ve had people argue with me over the legitimacy of that factorisation line for quite some time.
I think all of you, poster included, are missing the real reason why this law is bad. It isn’t because they are trying to enable religious freedoms - I believe that is a noble goal (on that note, I think both the creationists and evolutionists are agruing the extreme sides of the same coin, but I digress).
The reason this law is bad is because it negates the point of teaching alternative view points. So what if you believe in creationism? So what if you believe in evolution? If your in the class then you need to learn what the instructor is teaching.
The law is bad because answering questions based on what was instructed has very little bearing on your belief. There are many things in college I didn’t believe, but since it was instructed, I learned it. Ironically now they make my arguements stronger since I know both sides of those particular arguements.
Second, everyone here is missing the point because they are turning it into an evolution vs. creationism. Neither has complete evidence. Both have some evidence. Both have completely fabricated stories to support themselves. And we honestly can’t rule out either theory.
So evolutionists demanding to remove creationism, and creationists demanding to remove evoultion are both acting in selfish, short-sighted manners that serve no purpose other than to stifle thought. You can think your right, heck you can BE right, and still allow the other guy to think what he wants. He might come across something that supports you (perhaps by accident even!).
Regardless of what I think if I or my children go into a class, I expect myself and I expect them to learn what is taught. I don’t believe anyone can make a fully informed decision without ACTUALLY being fully informed!
And Americans wonder why the rest of the world regards them as a laughing stock! Ok, that’s not fair, we do know that you’re ALL the same as the people proposing this law, nor are ALL people who believe this rubbish American. When I was at the University of Queensland I would have debates with my friend Neil, an exceedingly intelligent man who gained honours in an extremely difficult Science degree (mathematics). Neil swore (because his father, a pastor, taught him so) that the universe was only 6 000 years old. My immediate response was to ask how then could we see stars that were 7 000 light years away. His answer, without pause for thought, “The speed of light is slowing down!” Now who knows, maybe it is (although I doubt so!), but to think that a man as intelligent as Neil could believe that his story of deccelerating light could explain why I can go out tonight and look through my telescope and see the Sombrero Galaxy 50 million lioght years away in a universe only 6000 years old was incredible. Anything I proposed to “prove” his creation theory wrong, he had some whacky answer for, and he firmly believed in what he was saying.
The proponents of creation work on “backwards” theory. A “real” scientist will make observations, draw conclusions, propose a hypothesis that fits with the observable evidence, construct a trial to test the hypothesis and when the trial disproves the hypothesis, will review their hypothesis, seek new evidence, trial and test further and so in in a never ending process of refining of the theory until eventually a theory is proposed that is as close to “what really happens” as possible.
A creationist on the other hand proposes a hypothesis (god created the World in 6 days and she did it 6 000 years ago), and will then go out and attempt to locate evidence (or in the absence of actual evidence, will invent it) to prove the hypothesis. The hypothesis never gets changed or refined. It is unshakeable, immovable. Only the evidence can be changed (read: altered) to fit. Anything that does not fit (i.e reality) is thrown out.
I must agree with Thomas, “We can not win a battle of wits againist the witless”. These are people of unshakeable faith in something that does not exist, events that never happened. You cannot change facts, no matter what your religion teaches you. That which is, is. That which happened, happened. No matter that your religion may teach differently, your religion is wrong.
Oh dear FSM! Cralis, where you said “Both have some evidence” I think you meant evolution has evidence and creationism has none.
Where you said “Both have completely fabricated stories to support themselves” I think you meant creationism has completely fabricated stories and evolution has evidence.
[…] answer is 42 Posted on March 9, 2008 by steve24601 From the Bad Astronomy Blog, The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed a bill that says that a student can receive a […]
Magista,
I’m not a believer of any of that stuff either - but I’m not particularly for overzealous, aggressive stance against religion manifested in punishing children for being party to it. Hence, I say I can understand the legislation. I dare say there are more than a couple of science teachers overstepping the line (atleast, where it is currently with this issue) and I’m certain that this legislation is there for this exact situation and not for the flying spaghetti theory. I doubt you are over that line, I’m merely suggesting that more than likely some heads have been butting over this issue and this bill is a kneejerk reaction to such a situation.
I appreciate your stance and opinion on the matter. I just don’t think we’re quite there yet. I also feel that is possible to teach science and phrase exam questions in such a way that this is a non issue.
My religion says that Algebra doesn’t exist because it doesn’t explain why we are here. Can I still get an A on the test if I write in x=5 for each answer?
@KC
“I think that’s reading a bit more into the phrase than is there. ‘Otherwise permissible’ does not necessarily include tests.”
But wouldn’t this bill at least create grounds where a teacher not sharing the views of the bible belt is fired on any grounds inventable?
@tacituson
“Sure it may take another generation or two, and there will be other reversals, but in the end America will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, hopefully before the rest of the world leaves it!”
I was convinced of that in the late 70s but it didn’t happen. I now know that thinking this way sets one up for failure. Never understimate the tide and the resistance to education.
@oldamateurastronomer
“The US used to be a haven for those who wanted to learn science. ”
example: stem cell reserch for medical advancement. I used to think it was sad that the US is falling behind. But, realistically, if the advancements are made by Japanese, French, or Deutsch scientists, mankind still benefits.
@ Richardon 09 Mar 2008 at 9:28 pm
“What I read in this bill is that they are trying to protect kids who have had an unfortunately religious upbringing from being penalised academically. I don’t necessarily think that that is negative.”
So if my upbringing forbade algebra, I should still be given an A on the math test?
@Cralis
“evolution vs. creationism. Neither has complete evidence. Both have some evidence. Both have completely fabricated stories to support themselves. And we honestly can’t rule out either theory.”
Wrong. One has lots of evidence, the other has zero. In Science, once fabricated stories are discovered, they’re thrown out. Evolutionary theories aren’t standing on just one leg; one fabricated paper wouldn’t negate libraries full of supporting evidence. What do you mean by “either theory”? There’s only one theory present. If you need to look up the definition and description of the phrase “scientific theory”, please do so.
Okay, okay, okay… I got one… I got one…
Question: What do the creationists Earth age, and the current presidential approval rating have in common?
Answer: They are both acceptable as margins of error!
Tiddleebuum, splish! Hah hah, eh… eh… eh…
(…crickets…)
Ah geez… you guys are brutal!
I hope all non-US members will reisit the urge to judge all of us by a few knuckle-draggers.
I’d like to encourage all intelligent Oklahomites(?) and other southerners to migrate north. If the folks down there want to live in their own little a*s-backwards fifedom, well then heck, leave’em to it.
richard… you need to educate yourself brother. im not going to try and convince you of anything here but do yourself a favor, read a book !
Fantastic! I never was good at math, and now I can simplify so much by just saying my religious beliefs state that Pi = 3.
I LIVE in Oklahoma and this really sickens me. Some of you might recall a few years back when they were attempting to set up a creationist exibit at the Tulsa zoo in Oklahoma. Fortunatly that got shot down and rightly so.
Oh, I read the notion of “protecting kids from being penalized for a bad upbrinding”.
I too believe in such a thing, however the solution of saying they passed and that they know something they don’t actually know helps no one. How does spreading ignorance and making certificates of graduation worthless help anyone? Don’t hurt the kids who do what they need because some kids can’t keep up. It’s like holding back education of the new super breed of humanoids with nano brains because some people didn’t want the modification. Well fine, no one said you had to wear glasses but don’t hold me back because you can’t see clearly. You chose it, live with the consequences.
Eh, back on topic, the real solution is for kids to be able to get educated correctly. Fortunatly, we already have that system in place, and it’s called school, and it DOES try to tell the kids the reality of the situation, and give them tests to make sure they absorbed it.
I saw pi being mentioned earlier and thought I’d share this little tidbit I stumbled across (woo stumbleupon.com) yesterday:
(I thought it was from OK but after finding it I saw it was Indiana)
“In 1897, Indiana tried to pass a bill stating that pi is equal to 3.2, as opposed to its truly infinite value, but it never became a law due to intervention by a Perdue University professsor[.]”
(source: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/12550 )
As far as I know, bills that have been passed by both the state house and senate still need to be approved by the governor of said state to be signed into law. (If they ignore said bill then after a period of time yes the bill becomes a law, or they could veto it, meaning OKlahomans would be saved (even though they would curse the idea).
“In my religion we believe that spelling correctly is a sin, and memorizing historical facts is blasphemy…
Give me an ‘A’ or my parents will sue your school!”
I can see it now…
This does not anger me, as so many of the freedom-destroying laws of late have. What this does is frighten me - yes, the emotion is fear, not anger.
As a child born in the 1960s, I grew up believing that we lived in an age of enlightenment and reason; that religious hysteria had finally been defeated by luminaries such as Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein; that the future held an increasing understanding of science and mathematics not just by great minds, but by the population at large. This view was reinforced, even in the Catholic school I went to (my mother is a devout Catholic and wanted me to have a religious education) by the separation of religious studies from all other subjects. When I went to school, Religion and Science were separate subjects that dealt with separate perceptions of existence. Religion did not try to teach me about how Mg + HCl -> MgCl + H2^ or F = g(m1.m2/d^2). Science did not try to teach me to stop and help someone in trouble, or the difference between right and wrong. And when my childhood fascination with science precluded my sharing my mother’s Christian beliefs, adopting instead my father’s Agnosticism, she accepted that and believed that as long as I was a good person, her god would not punish me. I was never taught “creation science” or any similar rubbish, and both my mother and school taught that the Bible was symbolic, a metaphor; God didn’t REALLY create the world in seven days, but seven symbolic “ages”. At no point did my religious training ever attempt to gainsay the findings of science. So because of this religious training, I always felt that religion was a harmless anachronism that would gradually fade away into history as science and reason took hold.
Wrongo. What I’m seeing here is the same events that led to the fall of the Roman Empire. Religion in school taught me (rightly or wrongly) how the Catholic religion developed after the death of Christ; at first it was outlawed, then Constantine made it permissible, then Justinian made it *mandatory*. This “evolution vs. creation controversy” (which for me is a no-brainer) is the first step on a very slippery slope. If this continues, in 500 years time we will not be terraforming Mars and journeying to the stars; we will be back to burning witches and waging crusades. Or executing scientists for “heresy”.
So I humbly apologise to you, Galileo and other great minds of history who suffered and died to free us from the shackles of superstition, on behalf of modern humanity, whose increasing regression to superstition renders your sacrifices meaningless. I hereby resolve to honour your memory by being prepared to go to the stake as a heretic, as you great men did, should this madness once again subsume our intelligence, in the name of upholding science and reason in the darkness of superstition and stupidity.
Well that’s nothing Derek, imagine that your parents are Holocaust Deniers, and this is your paper on WWII for history class …
“In 1942 the filthy Jews started a propaganda campaign about our wonderful, loving Führer who was only trying to help them, and improve life for all Germans. They claimed he sent them on trains to be exterminated, but Auschwitz was actually the “Euro Disney” of the time, where they were given free pony rides and cotton candy …”
Teacher’s comments:
Good work. A+
Further to what IRONMANAustralia has posted above:
I wonder if such laws could end up working against their agenda (presumably of some fanatical Christian bent). Certainly, here in New Zealand they have gone the other direction and tried to push elective religious study (”Bible in Schools”) out of the classroom.
The government argument here is that you have to let every looney fringe element religion have equal rights to such access, and it could turn into a nightmare. No real harm in having Islam or Hindu or Budhist beliefs taught, maybe, but then you have the neo-Nazi/white supremacists, fringe cult groups and so forth.
So what happens when your local nutters glom onto this opportunity?
Well,
After recieving an ‘Oklahoman education’ they could still become ‘Oklahoman politicians’, couldn’t they ?
The Baboon Nebula !!!
I just found it. It’s in the Small Magellanic Cloud. Seriously.
http://tispaquin.blogspot.com/2008/03/baboon-nebula.html
Cheers.
It’s PURDUE UNIVERSITY genius… but anyway, yeah, the PI law is part of Indiana’s vast history of stupidity.
The koolest gravitational lens I have ever seen is here,in Abell 2269.
Reading comprehension would really serve you folks well. The bill specifically states that:
“Homework and classroom work shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school.”
“Homework and classroom work shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school.”
—
cf. Does this sentence contain a single independently verifiable term of reference?
No.
Wacky religious beliefs about historical facts aren’t as.. practically problematic as wacky beliefs about ongoing phenomena. If someone denies that natural selection is happening now, that’s a problem. If they think we were created from dust 6008 years ago, that’s just irrelevant. Come to think of it, I’ve never used continental drift in my daily life either.
Sadly, as long as we have compulsory, publicly funded education, we have to continue debating irrelevant Truths.
DCpunkon: Reading comprehension would really serve you folks well. The bill specifically states that:
“Homework and classroom work shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school.”
This is the key phrase, DCpunkon. You don’t see how that phrase can be abused? The next headline will read something along the lines of: Oklahoman high school defines YEC (otherwise called “teaching the controversy” to dodge the obvious constitutional issue) as a “legitimate pedagogical concern”.
Wrong. Putting one theory that has zero supporting evidence on the same level as a theory that is the de facto accepted explanation for the biodiversity on the planet is just wrong. Creationism has no valid scientific evidence. Their research amounts to nothing more than reverse “engineering” the bible and their loudest supporters are guilty of a constant stream of lies and distortions.
This bill not only fosters an environment where any religious view can be substituted for actually learning the subject matter but it also creates situations where student are given the floor (such as assemblies, speaches, pep rallys etc…) can use that time to proselytize to what essentially is a captive audience. And because of the loose wording in the bill, there will be nothing the school can do about it.
Effeminemon: If they think we were created from dust 6008 years ago, that’s just irrelevant. Come to think of it, I’ve never used continental drift in my daily life either.
Ever experience an earthquake? Would you like a few minutes warning before the next one hits? Would you like the engineers at the nuclear generating station a few miles from you to have some advanced warning?
Continental drift is not irrelevant to your daily life. Someone choosing to ignore continental drift is, however, irrelevant to earthquakes.
StuartAustraliaon: And Americans wonder why the rest of the world regards them as a laughing stock! Ok, that’s not fair, we do know that you’re ALL the same as the people proposing this law,
Just for the record, this Canadian doesn’t condemn all Americans for anti-science. I do, however, condemn all Americans for persistently voting these people into power, or worse, not voting at all.
A crack in Fundamentalist anti-science?
Southern Baptist leaders shift position on climate change
What struck me about this was the similarity in language between last year’s anti-GW resolution and Southern Baptist pronouncements on creation/evolution.
With leadership like this in our various US governments, we are doomed. The lean, hungry (and educated) barbarians will soon have Americans working as serfs. I despair for the future of our children.
Every time I read yet another creationism-in-schools story, I lose a little more faith in humanity. Oh well, at least the catholics are on our side.
I’ve been mulling a possible compromise that might help to resolve the issue, while still communicating a full understanding of science to the student.
We tell the students exactly what science is: It is the investigation of the natural world, through observation and experimentation. This does not have to be at odds with religion. They can choose to believe that their own personal Creator made the world/universe at any point in history. If that was 6000 years ago, then they can believe that it was a world where there were fake dinosaur fossils hidden in the ground.
However, they need to accept the fact that we can still dig up the fossils, and that tried-and-true science shows us that they are millions of years old. Maybe they were created that way 6000 years ago, but [i]they look millions of years old to us[/i], and [i]that’s[/i] the part that matters in science: how things seem to us, that is, humans.
Moose: Someone choosing to ignore continental drift is, however, irrelevant to earthquakes.
Exactly. I’ll be crushed by debris whether I believe in it or not.
Well, I don’t really want to argue on the side of ignorance today. I was just thinking that the debate is so heated because 1) we have to share one educational system and 2) some people can’t tell a scientific theory from religious doctrine.
“A lump of lithium dropped into water will create heat and hydrogen gas.”
- Come on now Phil, you should know better! If you concede that a lump of lithium can create heat and hydrogen then you create a slippery slope leading to an argument that an almighty being that created the entire universe 6000 years ago. If you had seen that as an answer on a test you would have had to mark it wrong too! =)
This collective intellectual suicide is incredible. Apart from teaching of loosely based opinions as scientific facts -which are completely useless in any serious profession- the scientific method is not taught. Tech companies and scientific research facilities will think twice before hiring people who were educated in Oklahoma if this legislation gets through.
El espagueti volador creó el mundo hace una hora y nos ha implantado memorias falsas a todos: ¡Aprobado!. [en]…
Esta afirmación llega desde la cámara de representantes de Oklahoma, mediante la aprobación de un proyecto de ley que indica que: Un estudiante ofrezca tal respuesta en alguna clase de Geociencias puede considerarse aprobado. Por supuesto, esa no es…
I’m a student in oklahoma and my science teacher is about to get some weird test answers.
Hail FSM!
That’s just idiotic. I can’t say anything more than that. This just lacks so much logic I can’t find the right words to express my contempt.
Just an aside: last I checked (five+ years ago), my college system rejects “high school diplomas” from a few fundamentalist “private schools” because their students simply cannot meet our entry standards. And we operate on a first-applied, first-served basis for the most part, so that’s saying something.
(To the best of my knowledge,) all Canadian catholic high schools currently meet our entry standards, so it’s not an anti-religious thing. We just want people to have a passing familiarity with reality when they come to us.
I was recently reminded of this quote from years ago and is still just as relevent today.
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
– Aldous Huxley
A group of Christian Schools got their panties in a bunch because the U of California system didn’t accept classwork credit for religious classes using certain textbooks produced by the bastions of higher learning, Bob Jones U and other. They sued the U of Cal system.
“they are turning it into an evolution vs. creationism.”
Funny, no-one even mentioned evolution before Cralis did.
It seems the fundies are trying it on every state, jumping from one to the other and so on. Considering the hammering they suffer every time they try something stupid, do they seriously think they have a chance at getting anywhere? The best they can do is bog each state down into legal limbo until one day it does go to court and boom - another Dover.
Hmmm, perhaps they have a cunning plan…
[…] The Bad Astronomer puts it much better than I do: I taught a few classes back when I was a grad student. If someone had answered a question on a test saying the Earth was 6000 years old, I would have marked it as incorrect. That’s because — and sit down for this breaking news — that answer is wrong. The student could complain, they could take it to the dean, the president, the Supreme Court for all I care — I wouldn’t have backed down. Wrong is wrong. […]
I’ve dug up the original law for those who are interested. Be aware it comes up as a Word document:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2007-08HB/HB2211_int.rtf
My main problem is with the phrase “otherwise permissible subject.” What does that mean, exactly? The law tries to clarify, but I still think it’s unclear.
The law states “Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of the submission by the student. Homework and classroom work shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school.”
The law then goes on to say “Students shall not be penalized or rewarded on account of religious content.” And gives one example: “If the assignment given by a teacher involves writing a poem, the work of a student who submits a poem in the form of a prayer (for example, a psalm) should be judged on the basis of academic standards, including literary quality, and not penalized or rewarded on account of its religious content.”
The law seems to state that normal criteria for grading will be used. This example is all well and good for English class. But the subject becomes stickier when you go to science class, where a students’ religious belief may clash directly with the content being taught.
I think that an analogous example from Biology class would be: A student is asked on a test to summarize the Theory of Evolution. The student answers with: “I believe that God created life and that the theory of evolution is erroneous. However, Darwin and others define the theory of evolution to be…” and then the student goes on to summarize the theory of evolution.
The law seems to state that the student, if he or she answers the question but puts in his or her 2 cents about the religious issue, should not be marked off or penalized for them.
Even so, the law is not quite clear on what happens if a student writes down “I believe that God created all life and that the theory of Evolution is not valid.” And doesn’t actually answer the question.
In the English class example, the expression of religious elief does not directly contradict the assignment. The student can still learn the concepts of alliteration, rhyme, meter, sentence structure, etc and use those tools to compose a poem.
In the Biology class example, the expression of religious belief (Young-Earth Creationism) directly contradicts what is being taught. The student has a religious objection to the concepts of natural selection, that present species evolved from past species, and survival of the fittest. But these are the tools that must be used to discuss evolution.
So, does the law state that a student must not be marked down in this case? Or, in a classroom discussion, if the student brings up his or her religious disagreement with evolution, is the teacher prevented from countering this by saying “the evidence (observations, predictions, fossil record) strongly supports evolution?”
As I said, the law’s vague. And in the vagueness there will be controversy. Even if the law was not intended to quash evolution in the classroom, there will be people who will use the law to argue that a kid who doesn’t answer questions about evolution correctly shouldn’t be penalized.
I know my last post was super-long, but I wanted to clarify one phrase in the law:
“Homework and classroom work shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school.”
This means, more or less, that the student will be marked wrong if the answer is “wrong.” Even so, the way the law is written, with lots of statements seeming to contradict this one, The concern that teachers can’t mark off when a student answers “god did it” is a valid one.
“I’ll be honest: if I were an employer, or a University recruiter, and the bill becomes law, I would look very skeptically at any application that came to my desk from a student who graduated in Oklahoma. That makes me sad, but that is the reality Oklahoma is aiming toward.”
–
I think Phil puts it well in that sentence. There is a certain point where I get tired arguing with the “don’t confuse me with the facts” group of people, and I note how quickly their tune changes when it comes to hiring a civil engineer and a bedrock geologist to build a 1,000 foot highway bridge over a river gorge. There are no atheists in foxholes? There are only atheists who build 1,000 foot bridges. The numbers have to add up.
Mystikan writes:
[[I hereby resolve to honour your memory by being prepared to go to the stake as a heretic, as you great men did, should this madness once again subsume our intelligence, in the name of upholding science and reason in the darkness of superstition and stupidity.]]
Mental image of Mystikan bravely leaving a bunch of lighters around on park benches, piling up wood around a stake, standing on the pile, tying himself up, and then saying “Go ahead! Burn me!” to some passing seminary students, who look at him briefly, shake their heads, and then keep walking.
Ad Hominid posts:
[[A crack in Fundamentalist anti-science?
Southern Baptist leaders shift position on climate change]]
Did you miss a year ago when 83 prominent evangelicals signed a statement urging Christians to combat global warming? Don’t assume Christians, even fundamentalist Christians, are necessarily right-wing, or are right-wing on all issues. Heck, I’m a born-again Christian and a liberal Democrat.
Darth Robo points out:
[[It seems the fundies are trying it on every state, jumping from one to the other and so on. ]]
Exactly. Although I’d specify “the creationists” rather than “the fundamentalists” (please use the non-derogatory word).
They have tried this again and again and again and had their ass handed to them every time. I don’t understand why there’s such panic over creationists. They’re going to keep doing this; they’re going to keep getting defeated in the courts. Especially if a Democrat wins in ‘08.
Yes, I know the statistic about 44% of Americans believing in a 10,000-or-less-year-old Earth. I don’t know how seriously to take poll results like that, though. Remember Carl Sagan’s remark about aliens asking Earth people where babies come from — “I know I would be sorely tempted to tell them about the stork.”
You mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn’t create
I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.
Oh well. That’s pretty typical for my embarrassing Okie legislators. As for the aforementioned OK State Rep. Sally Kern, District 84, Republican. She said that Eureka Springs, AR has been taken over by the homosexual agenda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFxk7glmMbo
If we have to give a passing grade to a student for religious reasons….why can’t we just give a passing grade to a student who just can’t/won’t comprehend the information?
I mean if Johnny Biblethumber can say 6000 years and get an A….and I take a WAG because I’m too lazy to take notes/read/study and come up with 1,000,000,000 years….should I not get an A too?
Wait:
“A school district shall treat a student’s voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint, if any, on an otherwise permissible subject in the same manner the district treats a student’s voluntary expression of a secular or other viewpoint on an otherwise permissible subject….”
Okay, I’d fail a student for writing unsupported secular nonsense, so that means in Oklahoma I’m required to fail the student for writing unsupported religious nonsense too?
They forgot a comma after “subject” as well. Marks off.
I did not, but that wasn’t the Southern Baptist Convention and would not be an example of Fundamentalist anti-science and is therefore not relevant to my post.
I assumed nothing of the kind. You’re putting words in my mouth, Paul. Where is the generalization about Christians or even about Fundamentalists? Further, I said nothing at all about political orientation and you, not I, introduced the term “right wing” into the discussion.
“Fundamentalist anti-science” refers to a specific phenonenon that is evident in Southern Baptist declarations in the past. They did pass the global warming resolution last year and they have made many statements in favor of ID and creationism. If that isn’t you, why go so far out of your way to pretend it is?
Btw, I’m an atheist and a conservative Republican.
I’m just glad its not Kansas for once. Usually we are waaay out in front on stupid.
[…] por J.M.Hernández Vía Bad Astronomy Blog, nos llega la noticia de que en Oklahoma, puedes ser aprobado en una clase de Ciencias de la Tierra […]
Jeffersonian:
My hypothetical retort was inspired by a Bible-Belt Science teacher, circa early 1970s, who would have jotted it on a test in a heart-beat. She was – and still is (she’s in her nineties now) a devout Fundamentalist Christian. The school principal, a Fundamentalist Christian lay-speaker, would have backed her up. Most Fundamentalist Christians aren’t Young Earth Creationists, and this has been the case for at least a century. In fact, I was in my teens before I encountered YEC as more than a rumor.
The reason why most Fundamentalist Christians aren’t YEC gets into an involved theological discussion. The short version is that YEC believe the term “day” in Genesis 1-2 refers to 24 hour periods while most Fundamentalist Christians interpret “day” as meaning an indeterminate period of time (as in the phrase “Day of the Lord,” which crops up several times in the Bible). There are even more complex hypothesis in Fundamentalist Christian circles. For one example, see a Scofield Study Bible notes on Genesis 1-2 and note that this has been “the” study bible of Fundamentalist Christianity for nearly a century.
Thus most Fundamentalist Christian churches in the Bible-Belt and elsewhere teach the Old Earth Creationist viewpoint. You hear more from the YEC because, well, they don’t believe the earth is billion of years old. Old Earth Creationists, having no problem with things like radioactive decay pointing to an earth billions of years old or that we can detect light and other electromagnetic radiation billions of light years away, don’t say very much.
This is why I don’t think a YEC-dominated school board is very likely even in the Bible-Belt. I won’t entirely rule it out because it could be possible to have a population cluster of YEC believers even though this isn’t the predominate Fundamentalist Christian view. There’s a possibility of this happening as long as school boards maintain some degree of autonomy. Yet the situation is worse if school boards lose what autonomy they still have because it introduces a situation where one faction could control school curriculum for a large area. But that gets into politics.
Suffice to say that while Young Earth Creationism is a subset of Fundamentalist Christianity, Fundamentalist Christianity /= Young Earth Creationism. Since YECs are more vocal than OECs, it’s a common misconception outside of Fundamentalist Christianity circles. And the one YEC I know has the attitude that even if you don’t believe what’s being taught, you must know the material that’s being taught in order to have a passing grade. To the best of my knowledge he never lodged a protest over his children learning the world is billions of years old or learning of evolution. Then again, I only know one confirmed YEC.
Ad Hominid:
Since the SBC is a loose coalition of Baptist churches rather than a hierarchical denomination, a statement by a number of “leaders” is interesting but means little until it comes to a delegate vote. I am curious at which declarations are/were unscientific. Offhand I can only think of Confessions of Faith (Baptists has Confessions of faith instead of creeds) and a few statement on theological issues.
Arizona has a similar bill in the works: HB2713: Students’ Religious Liberties Act.
Carbo diem
KC said:
I am not aware of anything unscientific in the SBC’s Statement of Faith and Message but the following resolutions certainly promote the anti-science position in terms of current public discourse:
Resolution 5, “On Global Warming”
2006: Resolution 10, “On Engaging The Direction Of The Public School System”
Going a little farther back:
“Resolution on Secular Humanism”
“Resolution on Scientific Creationism”
As you no doubt know, resolutions are expressions of opinion or concern passed during the annual Convention meeting.
I see all scholastics becoming multiple-choice. “No, 6000 years was not a response, and no, write-ins are not allowed. No, you can’t put in your own “e” and write none of the above.”
Now, how to make an essay into multiple-choice…
Kenon: I’m just glad its not Kansas for once. Usually we are waaay out in front on stupid.
Still are, I’m afraid.
Apparently Kansas just passed a law to fine websites ($500 on first offense and up from there) for not verifying and publishing full names on message board posts. Even as they admit this is going to be a “challenge” to enforce. It still has to go through the Kansas senate.
I don’t have the link to hand, but it’s on Fark.com’s main page right now. (At least partially because Fark’s based in Kansas, I’m sure.)
IRONman… you cannot divide by zerio.
Also, why is it okay to tell a student that 2+3=4 in one class and give them credit, but not accept an answer that G-d created the universe?
Evolutionists and Big Bangers cannot prove completely that everything is here today without G-d anymore than anyone can prove that everything is here because of G-d.
Just teach evolution and the current best science as “the current best scientific answer and other answers may be as valid”. Don’t get bent up about that your answer is the only answer. Science is about challenging the status quo. We found that Newton wasn’t ‘exactly’ correct. We may find Einstein had some things wrong. Einstein did believe the universe was static, then Hubble showed the universe is expanding. D’oh.
“Do Not Question Authority!”
“there are some things that are simple facts”
There are facts, and then there are theories. Evolution and creationism are both theories, and there is no “absolute proof” for either. Being a graduate student, you should understand that almost all scientific studies are theoretical.
Instead of stating “This is fact!”, the proper approach is to say, “This is my opinion!” By not doing this, it speaks highly of your ignorance and failed education.
i can only hope that as we speak, teams of smartass oklahoma high school students are busy coining new religions to maximize the benefit of this new legislation.
in particular, irreligious students in catholic schools ought to have a grand time with this.
FSM fhtagn!
Prove to me that the earth was formed from a Big Bang that formed from a primal soup that formed from …???
I don’t want evidence, I want proof.
Don’t go saying that something is wrong when you can’t prove that the opposite (or at least an alternative) is true. It takes just as much faith for you to believe in evolution as it does to believe in Intelligent Design.
This kind of crap pisses me off because it’s hypocritical. You’re doing the exact same thing that you’re accusing others of doing. Lame.
I am sorry, but when did evolution theory become fact. I don’t believe that these kids should be given an excuse to fail, but again, you can’t say that they are wrong with both creation and evolution are considered theories.
Singapore welcomes all the scientists who would like to take refuge from The American Dark Ages..
Don’t be ashamed. Many scientists took refuge in America from Hitler. This is the same thing all over again.
Many of my professors here at NUS are from Harvard and Ivy Leagues. They came here leaving all of their great labs and facilities in USA. But we gave them even greater things.
Our doors are always open. And we give permanent resident status easily too. No crime. Chew all the gum you want because it is legal. Excellent health care. Education that is free from Creationism. And 2nd best on the UN Economic Freedoms Index.
It’s their right to have a religion, and they can believe in creationalism if they damn well want to. You don’t have any say in that.
Your totalitarian view of thinking will only push religious types farther away from other important aspects of science and education.
Build a bridge and get over yourself
My God Flies and has a Hammer.Your God got nailed to a tree, any questions?
Sorry. Your statement that the Earth is not 6,000 years old is not a fact. It is inferred from the data available, and there is some uncertainty associated with that information. To present it as something that is absolutely true is similar to presenting that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Both statements have uncertainty.
You are falling into the same trap that Creationists fall into. And, no, it doesn’t make a great argument to add qualifiers to your statements (and where do those qualifiers end). But, when you are dealing with reality, there is no absolute certainty.
I hate my state. :/
Please remember that science only matters to a creationist when it time to fill a prescription.
*siiiigh*
This whole business reminds me of Charlie Brown on the pitcher’s mound at the end of a game, looking downcast and mumbling to himself, “How can we lose when we’re so sincere?”
I just have one work of advice for any teachers reading this, or anyone else that ever gets into “intellectual” discussions with the Creationists. Beat them at there own game by quoting fromt he beloved Book. I actually went to a Baptist school and the Bible was drilled into my brain. In Genesis it says “the earth was without form and void” meaning that is was there but it was empty! But there was a hunk of rock there with water on it. Really simple, jsut ask them what they think of that passage because it really lines up with carbon dating and everything. Sock it to em!
I think this is very well written, by the way. The only statement that I do not agree with is this one: “One problem with this is that once you open the door to fantasy, any and all flavors of it can walk on through, as in the example above.” The problem with this “slippery slope” logic is that it is used by some as a way to justify their own bigotries. For example, a bigoted person might say, “We can’t allow gays to marry because then people will want to marry their sister, their dog or their pet sheep, snakes and ottomans and eventually we will just be one big race of inbred, face licking, wiry, white haired, scaly skinned, foot rests!” Seriously though, why are we still giving this “debate” the time of day? It’s ridiculous. I guess we have to until our politicians stop this nonsense! It’s such a waste of perfectly good brain power though. We could be, I don’t know, finding a cure for cancer with stem cells or something. No wonder 17 other countries produce more scientists than America and we rank below some third world countries in educating our youth!!!!
chrison: I am sorry, but when did evolution theory become fact. I don’t believe that these kids should be given an excuse to fail, but again, you can’t say that they are wrong with both creation and evolution are considered theories.
When it became a theory. That’s not a flip answer. Theories are not conjecture.
Theories are predictive models. They become fact (or as good as fact) as they get better at modeling reality. They become better through forming hypotheses, through good experimentation, and either rejecting or not rejecting the hypotheses. As you get enough hypotheses, you improve the model, and that improved model becomes the new theory.
Evolution is a fact. It’s been observed in the wild (in living memory). It’s been reproduced in the lab. It’s apparent all throughout the fossil record. Evolution (the theory)’s predictions have been confirmed many times, by many non-biology scientific disciplines. It’s useful. Not so much Darwin’s original model (a good first try), but Evolution (the theory) has had 150 years to be improved through testing and a lot of hard work.
Creation has never been a theory, and will never be a theory because it has no use, it makes no predictions (testable or otherwise), and no testing has ever been attempted by the “cdesign proponentists”, let alone successful testing.
Gravity is a fact. It is also a theory that describes gravity, a fact. And that theory has so much predictive value (except at the extremes, such as past the event horizon of black holes) that the theory of gravity may as well be fact too.
As gravity is a fact, and a theory, so is Evolution. It’s a fact. And its a theory that is so successfully predictive it may as well itself be fact.
Creation, on the other hand, is a cynical political movement ultimately trying to establish one, and only one religious variant: their own.
So what happens when these kids go to out-of-stage college? Those answers will not do in any other state and at any university. They are crippling their children’s education.
Did Uncommonly Dense link to this post or something?
@chris:
“I am sorry, but when did evolution theory become fact.”
Look up the scientific definition of “theory”. It does not mean the same thing as everyday, layman usage. Scientist use a definition that mean that a theory is built on observations and evidence, while the ID supporters use a definition that essential means nothing more than “This is what I think”. Whereas evolution is based on things that are observed and testing, ID is based solely on the written description of a religion.
@Hurley:
“Also, why is it okay to tell a student that 2+3=4 in one class and give them credit, but not accept an answer that G-d created the universe?”
2+3=4? Is that a typo, a joke, a reference to all the comments that you could essentially create any answer you like, or is there something “fuzzy” I’m missing?
As for challenging science, I bet no one on this board would object to a valid challenge that was rooted in science, that had an observational and testable basis. But to teach something that has no such evidence at all goes against science. Science should be changed, but by science - not superstition or personal beliefs.
@Chandler:
“Prove to me that the earth was formed from a Big Bang that formed from a primal soup that formed from …???
I don’t want evidence, I want proof.”
First off, what do you think that evidence is? I’ll grant that “evidence” may not necessarily mean direct or complete proof, but it is more than simply saying “I belief” and then referring to Bible, the only single source that “confirms” God’s existence.
—————————
Personally, as a Christian, I don’t want the government teaching my kids religion. That’s my job and my prerogative, and I’ll thank all the creationist, IDers and those who want to add such training to schools to just butt out.
As for the law, I like the protect that it would give students in expressing religious ideas in classes such as art, drama, and English (composition). I’ve heard stories of kids getting punished for turning in such works in the name of the Separation Clause, although, it is very, VERY incredible rare. Of course, when I was in school, I used to write all my English assignments about a cannibal named Jeffery, and my that English teach threatened me (jokingly) that she’d shoot me for disturbing her class. If that happened now, I’d been suspended, and if I hadn’t, then I’m sure that teacher would have been fired later, when she made those comments.
@chris:
Actually Moose did a far better job with the theory definition than I did. May I also recommend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
And note the bit from the NAS:
“Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena”
———————-
As an aside and Off Topic, does anyone know what rules the blog uses regarding mark ups? Does it use standard HTML, or some other vague rules, and if so, where can I find them. I’m tired of not being able to clearly mark up my post.
A question to the evolutionists: Answer the question, how old is the earth?
@steve:
Are you the same steve that asked:
“Sorry. Your statement that the Earth is not 6,000 years old is not a fact. It is inferred from the data available, and there is some uncertainty associated with that information. To present it as something that is absolutely true is similar to presenting that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Both statements have uncertainty.”
The line of questioning would suggest so. I could be wrong, but I probably have a better chance of being correct than assuming that you are Moose from above, considering the content of the posts.
We could be wrong, but there current evidence suggest that 4.5 billion is far more likely that 6000 years. Could they both be wrong? Yeah, but outside of the Bible, what real evidence is there to support a 6000 year old Earth, compared to the volumes of data that suggest a earth roughly 4.5 billion years old?
@Chris
Please stop spreading your misinterpretation of the word theory. It’s almost as if you are intentionally trying to spread lies. You must have come across someone that has explained the difference between the generally used term “theory” and “scientific theory”. Here, I’ll even post it so you don’t have to spend your precious time learning how to find facts on your own:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
“In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.”
“In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time.”
“I’m not American so every time I hear the word Oklahoma I see Steve Martin running around with a pot on his head shouting “Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma…””
I am American, Shane, and I see the same thing, only he’s wearing day-glo orange buckskin pants and moccasins. Also, he has mustard on his upper lip.
Hey,
Just thought I’d let you know this post has been included the Latest News section on the front page Richard Dawkins’ website.
Al
Going back a bit, to IRONMANAustralia,
Don’t forget that 0/0 can have three values:
Zero over any number = 0
Any number over itself = 1
Any number over zero = Infinity
Try entering 0/0= into a calculator and see what happens.
Sounds really easy to me. Just make all the questions pertain to the books that they read. Ask them questions like
In Chapter 1 of the Science of Life book when do they say the world existed.
This bypasses individual beliefs and makes it directly relate to the reading. They are not forced to believe it, just state what the book says. When I was in high school they tried to do a similar idea (that was quickly squashed by science teachers that are smarter then rule makers).
Aerimus, the blog uses a very basic subset of html for markup purposes. The BAUT forum uses UBB code.
so a better answer the question, how old is the earth? would be…. WE DO NOT KNOW, but our guess is blah blah blah blah……
Steve. Primer on the age of the Earth. It’s a fair starting point.
[…] and has already passed the state house of representatives.We have this insightful nugget from Oklahoma: What I find most ironic about this legislation — and there is a rich, rich field of irony to […]
Speaking of which, Steve, while it’s difficult to pin down an exact age for the Earth (radiometric evidence puts it somewhere between 4.404 billion years and 4.567 billion years), and a better estimate would require some pretty solid evidence we don’t have yet, we have more than enough evidence to reject your hypothesis utterly: 6000 years is not the age of the Earth. There’s no legitimate uncertainty about that.
So is anyone keeping a list of states with suspicious science standards? Good universities will need to know, so that they can know which applicants will need remedial science classes. I can’t keep it straight. Which states have shot this crap down and which haven’t?
The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme is one of the oldest available, as well as one of the most highly respected. It has been refined to the point that the error in dates of rocks about three billion years old is no more than two million years. TWO MILLION YEARS! Ya gotta have some major faith to believe in the most highly respected dating scheme. I think I will become the wisest evolutionist of all time and say that the earth is at least 984 trillion years old, that way no scientist in the world could prove me wrong
So far, no states are fully doomed. And by my count, Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida are only potentially doomed. But the trend is clear. Residents of all states need to be vigilant.
Steve, except you’d have no evidence whatsoever to back your claim. The oldest object found in the solar system (meteoric material) puts the upper bound at 4.567 billion years. It could be larger, but until we have evidence, that’s the best we’ve got.
The lower bound, on the other hand, has been definitively determined: 4.404 billion years (zircon from western Australia). The Earth must definitely be older than that.
… All of which you’d know if you’d have followed the link I provided earlier. There’s no reason anyone should have to sit here and spoon feed all of this to you like strained carrots to my goddaughter when she was a year old and pretty much helpless. What’s your excuse?
Thanks for humoring my pre-work ‘digging’ today, I did enjoy the entirely overt tone of your article. A man with a mission!
If I was you I’d be worried about extremists trying to blow up those you care about than I would about whether someone felt the earth was 6k years old - particularly when those somebodies are typically the people who operate social justice organisations and the like.
But that’s just me.. and as I can tell by the comments here you’re not alone!
But an important question is, “what is the product of that belief”? What’s the outcome? Does it result in meaning, purpose and harmony?
Sadly for some so-called ‘Christians’ it’s a legalistic arrogance which looks down it’s nose and tars any different opinion with the same brush.. resorting to ridicule and abuse
We all know that’s not fun and doesn’t create any meaningful conversation and I am sure those poor people aren’t alone in that attitude… are they people?
But I did want to put a finger on the important discussion that’s been overlooked as far as I can tell. That of outcomes.
I think there are better high horses to get on. So let’s just all get on shall we.
Cheers
@steve
Just another comment on your 6,000 year-old Earth comment. I came across a compute the other day. There is no direct document that states when it was made. Looking at the history of computers, the components that make up the computer, and the materials used, I can be reasonably certain that it was made sometime within the last 30-40 years.
Then, someone came along and said that my conclusion is not a fact, that it is based only on inferences from the available data and that it is just as likely that it was made 400 years ago. Well, I was not present when it was made, nor was I alive 400 years ago, so I can’t speak from direct evidence of the technology available then, but I can safely reject that as a falsity based on the preponderance of evidence for my conclusion and the utter lack of evidence for the alternative. Indeed, the evidence available points to the inability of the computer to have even been conceived of 400 years ago.
This analogy can be applied to your example. As others have said, while there may be uncertainty of the exact age of the Earth, the evidence points toward billions of years old. The evidence further shows that the Earth cannot be only 6,000 years old. So, your initial argument is, indeed, invalid.
Well… I honestly don’t know what to say. There must be SOME specifics, otherwise, people could just make up their own religion and get and pass every single class. But on the flip side, it indeed will make it easier to get a better job for those of us with any common sense.
The only reason I haven’t lost faith in humanity yet is because looking back, religion was MUCH more prominent a h