By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - I have never seen an article so offensive to Christianity as this

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/26/breaking-news-science-wins-in-texas-barely/

Breaking news: SCIENCE WINS IN TEXAS!! Barely.

Incredible news out of Texas: creationists have lost a big battle to destroy science education in the Lone Star State!

The State Board of Education voted on the science standards — the list of basic scientific knowledge students should have at various grade levels, like knowing that atoms are the basic building blocks of matter, the Earth goes around the Sun, and — say — evolution is the basic and most fundamental aspect upon which all of modern biology is based.

Creationists on the board (and there are many) tried to water down the standards by creating a phony baloney "strengths and weaknesses" amendment, a totally bogus and arbitrary rule that says that teachers have to point out where a theory has faults. They did this specifically to weaken the teaching of evolution in biology classes. They don’t actually care if the students get a solid education on the fact of evolution, they only care to tear down real science and replace it with Biblical literalism.

And they failed. According to the fantastic science-based Texas Freedom Network, which has been live-blogging the vote, the creationist amendment lost in a 7-7 vote. They could not add the amendment without an actual victory, so the tie means the garbage amendment goes down.

But before you dance in the streets, have a mind that the vote was tied 7-7. In other words, half the people on the Texas State School Board of Education thought it was fine and dandy that evolution, a foundation of modern science and shown to be fact beyond reasonable doubt, be taught as being weak and flawed.

So once again, we see that creationists have lost, but we also know that they will never, ever admit defeat. Remember, their entire outlook on life is not based on reality, but dogma, and so they cannot rest, cannot stop, without shattering their whole worldview.

So as always, this is not over, despite this advance. It’s a victory for the students of Texas and for reality, but the war will rage on.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again (and I’m not the first): the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Stay sharp, Texas. They’ll regroup. Bet on it.

[UPDATE: TFN notes that a final vote will come Friday on all the standards, so even this chapter of the battle isn’t over yet. Stay Tuned.]

 

Wow.  I cannot believe that some evolutionists think this way.  As far as I know, evolution is still a theory, and he says so in the article.  Yet, somehow, the creationists wanting the students to be taught that it is a theory will doom education?  He says that evolution is a foundation of modern science and that saying creationists outlook on life is based not on reality, but dogma.  He didn't have to say that to prove his point, and it is in poor taste for him to do so.

I believe that I don't get offended very easily, but I will, for sure, avoid any article with the name Phil Plait on it.





 

Around the Network

I love how people say dont push your religion on me i have the right to not believe in god.... but in every school you have science classes with atoms, and matter and cells.... no religion classes....hmmm *ponders*



so, saying that a leading scientific theory with evidence to support is better than a theory that has 0 evidence to support it and is based on texts that are thousands of years old is offensive to you?



SciFiBoy said:
so, saying that a leading scientific theory with evidence to support is better than a theory that has 0 evidence to support it and is based on texts that are thousands of years old is offensive to you?

Damn,  beat me to it

 



Yes evolution is a theory, but its a scientific theory and in science the word 'theory' means a hypothesis that has been tested and proven.

So yeah, I feel preeetty much the same way he does about religious attempts at infiltration into the school system.

@antfromtashkent. Thats because all that stuff is science, science is based on observable evidence, not an old book.



Around the Network
SciFiBoy said:
so, saying that a leading scientific theory with evidence to support is better than a theory that has 0 evidence to support it and is based on texts that are thousands of years old is offensive to you?

First off: Science has no ability to prove or disprove religion.  So yes, there is 0 evidence to support Christianity.

Second off: It is fine to teach it as a theory.  However, the schools are not teaching it as a theory, but as a fact.  The main problem is his attitude to the Christians who believe it should be taught as a theory.

 




 

Senlis said:
SciFiBoy said:
so, saying that a leading scientific theory with evidence to support is better than a theory that has 0 evidence to support it and is based on texts that are thousands of years old is offensive to you?

First off: Science has no ability to prove or disprove religion.  So yes, there is 0 evidence to support Christianity.

Second off: It is fine to teach it as a theory.  However, the schools are not teaching it as a theory, but as a fact.  The main problem is his attitude to the Christians who believe it should be taught as a theory.

 

Teacher: And the letter "A" is the first letter of the alphabet.

Student: Only in your opinion.

 



 

 

Senlis said:
SciFiBoy said:
so, saying that a leading scientific theory with evidence to support is better than a theory that has 0 evidence to support it and is based on texts that are thousands of years old is offensive to you?

First off: Science has no ability to prove or disprove religion.  So yes, there is 0 evidence to support Christianity.

Second off: It is fine to teach it as a theory.  However, the schools are not teaching it as a theory, but as a fact.  The main problem is his attitude to the Christians who believe it should be taught as a theory.

 

With the amount of evidence that supports evolution, it is safe to say that it is indeed fact.   And for people to try and tear into it and make like the study is full of holes is ridiculous.  Unless they can back that up with evidence that it is indeed wrong.

 



Senlis said:
SciFiBoy said:
so, saying that a leading scientific theory with evidence to support is better than a theory that has 0 evidence to support it and is based on texts that are thousands of years old is offensive to you?

First off: Science has no ability to prove or disprove religion.  So yes, there is 0 evidence to support Christianity.

Second off: It is fine to teach it as a theory.  However, the schools are not teaching it as a theory, but as a fact.  The main problem is his attitude to the Christians who believe it should be taught as a theory.

 

Once again, you misunderstand the word theory. You are thinking theory as in the sense "Y'know, I have a theory about this...", thats not what it  means in science. In science theory is a word for a hypothesis that has been thoroughly tested emperically and has passed all of its tests.



Gravity is still just a theory. We are still trying to figure out what gravity really is. We know what it does, but now what it is.

Saying something is "just a theory" is about the dumbest argument you could make against evolution. The "law of gravity" is wrong and has been disproved. Even Einstein's theory of relativity isn't "right," it is just less wrong than the "law of gravity."

Before you start criticizing scientists, it helps if you ACTUALLY KNOW a little something about science.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson