New Florida law lets any resident challenge what's taught in science classes(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
New Florida law lets any resident challenge what's taught in science classes
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/07/01/new-florida-law-lets-any-resident-challenge-whats-taught-in-science-classes/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.4f4a60711b11
104 comments
Your comment is so ironic. You complain about conservatives wanting to "shut up" the media. And yet here you are advocating shutting up conservative ideas about creation in school. How hypocritical.
As for science, macro evolutionary theory isn't even science. The scientific method requires testing and 200 years isn't long enough to verify something that takes tens of thousands of years to occur.
Secondly, the fossil record shows all kinds of stuff that just doesn't jive with evolution. Darwin said if he was right the ground would be full of innumerable transitional fossils. But what we find is that as soon as something appears in the fossil record, it stays very similar. The Cambrian explosion is another thing that just doesn't make sense evolutionary speaking.
And all this is made worse by the fact that somehow evolution spent billions of years unable to move past unicellular organisms, and yet was able to jump from a monkey to a human in 10k years? Monkeys have the intelligence according to tests of a 2 and 1/2 years old. The difference is astonishing and yet supposedly happened in an exceedingly short period of time, when life couldn't get out of the bacteria stage for a billion years?
There are a lot of holes in evolutionary theory. What is unscientific, and all to common among liberals is ignoring those who point out inconvenient facts
As for science, macro evolutionary theory isn't even science. The scientific method requires testing and 200 years isn't long enough to verify something that takes tens of thousands of years to occur.
Secondly, the fossil record shows all kinds of stuff that just doesn't jive with evolution. Darwin said if he was right the ground would be full of innumerable transitional fossils. But what we find is that as soon as something appears in the fossil record, it stays very similar. The Cambrian explosion is another thing that just doesn't make sense evolutionary speaking.
And all this is made worse by the fact that somehow evolution spent billions of years unable to move past unicellular organisms, and yet was able to jump from a monkey to a human in 10k years? Monkeys have the intelligence according to tests of a 2 and 1/2 years old. The difference is astonishing and yet supposedly happened in an exceedingly short period of time, when life couldn't get out of the bacteria stage for a billion years?
There are a lot of holes in evolutionary theory. What is unscientific, and all to common among liberals is ignoring those who point out inconvenient facts
Not hypocritical.
Religion isn't science. It's fantasy. Physicists vs chemists would be be a scientific debate.
A proper conservative creationist debate would be vs Roman paganism.
X isn't perfect so Y must be the answer is the oldest false choice gimmick going. I can easily point to how shitty everyone practices their religion and prove it's fake that way too.
Seriously, how many people are reading the Bible? Some. The best available translation? Fewer. The original untranslated text? Very few. It's the actual word of God and you don't think it's important enough to read in the original? Please. Give me a break.
Let's set that aside though. Let's just go for the big stuff. Is Jesus cosubstancial with the father? You would figure something that profound would be easy to ask God himself. How this question was resolved is proof of the popularity contest that was / is the Christian church.
Science keeps chipping away at the Bible. The reverse doesn't happen. Just because X doesn't solve everything perfectly (and doesn't claim to) doesn't mean Y is anything less than fantasy.
Religion isn't science. It's fantasy. Physicists vs chemists would be be a scientific debate.
A proper conservative creationist debate would be vs Roman paganism.
X isn't perfect so Y must be the answer is the oldest false choice gimmick going. I can easily point to how shitty everyone practices their religion and prove it's fake that way too.
Seriously, how many people are reading the Bible? Some. The best available translation? Fewer. The original untranslated text? Very few. It's the actual word of God and you don't think it's important enough to read in the original? Please. Give me a break.
Let's set that aside though. Let's just go for the big stuff. Is Jesus cosubstancial with the father? You would figure something that profound would be easy to ask God himself. How this question was resolved is proof of the popularity contest that was / is the Christian church.
Science keeps chipping away at the Bible. The reverse doesn't happen. Just because X doesn't solve everything perfectly (and doesn't claim to) doesn't mean Y is anything less than fantasy.
Great question about translation. I read "Youngs literal translation" which is much more accurate. And I frequently use the Blue Letter Bible website which has an amazing resource to help you understand the Greek/Hebrew meaning of any word!
Science doesn't "chip away at the Bible". Bad science does though. Anecdotally I think what happens is that people want to have sex outside of marriage so they accept bad science to validate their choices. Sex hormones make people do really irrational things.
Science doesn't "chip away at the Bible". Bad science does though. Anecdotally I think what happens is that people want to have sex outside of marriage so they accept bad science to validate their choices. Sex hormones make people do really irrational things.
Isn't irrational the base of the religion (in opposition to rational : "based on facts and reason, not emotion" according to Cambridge dictionary) ?
> What is unscientific, and all to common among liberals is ignoring those who point out inconvenient facts
So against my better judgement I'm going to not ignore (downvote) you and reply briefly. Key word being briefly. I have no interest getting into a debate.
No one is ignoring those "inconvenient facts"
1. Calling them "facts" is a red flag you are not open to debate. A fact has a very specific definition and what you said is not a fact and I wouldn't call it one even if I agreed with the idea.
2. The "no transition fossils" idea has been thoroughly debunked (there are indeed many).
3. The Cambrian Explosion has been debated and written on quite significantly and the research is pretty convincing for most people.
4. On your comment about the speed of evolution. The number of mutations needed to change the DNA of a chimpanzee to that of a human is far fewer than a single celled organism. A common first program in bioinformatics courses is to calculate the longest subset of similar DNA between species. The differences are very subtle. Which incidentally is why a small mutation can cause a human child to be born with very different physical properties than a healthy human child.
In fact, if you take the time to study how DNA works it is very clear to see how evolution works. After studying the subject it very clear and clean cut.
I think one of the biggest problems with science education is that we talk a out evolution on a marcro scale. Talking about it at a DNA level I think the amount of closed-mindedness to deny it would be astounding.
Edit: As another aside, assuming you are Christian, what is it about the bible that you think 7 days and 7 nights is to be taken literally? The bible is meant to be allegorical not literal. Most Christians I know have long since stated that they believe in evolution and that they do not feel that contradicts their faith.
So against my better judgement I'm going to not ignore (downvote) you and reply briefly. Key word being briefly. I have no interest getting into a debate.
No one is ignoring those "inconvenient facts"
1. Calling them "facts" is a red flag you are not open to debate. A fact has a very specific definition and what you said is not a fact and I wouldn't call it one even if I agreed with the idea.
2. The "no transition fossils" idea has been thoroughly debunked (there are indeed many).
3. The Cambrian Explosion has been debated and written on quite significantly and the research is pretty convincing for most people.
4. On your comment about the speed of evolution. The number of mutations needed to change the DNA of a chimpanzee to that of a human is far fewer than a single celled organism. A common first program in bioinformatics courses is to calculate the longest subset of similar DNA between species. The differences are very subtle. Which incidentally is why a small mutation can cause a human child to be born with very different physical properties than a healthy human child.
In fact, if you take the time to study how DNA works it is very clear to see how evolution works. After studying the subject it very clear and clean cut.
I think one of the biggest problems with science education is that we talk a out evolution on a marcro scale. Talking about it at a DNA level I think the amount of closed-mindedness to deny it would be astounding.
Edit: As another aside, assuming you are Christian, what is it about the bible that you think 7 days and 7 nights is to be taken literally? The bible is meant to be allegorical not literal. Most Christians I know have long since stated that they believe in evolution and that they do not feel that contradicts their faith.
1. As for facts, I am referring to things like the Cambrian explosiom, and the lack of transitional fossils. For example how about Lucy? Lucy was clearly a chimp. You can go read the actual PBS interview with the guys who reconstructed it. They said when they reconstructed it at first, the hip looked just like a chimpanzee hip. Since there wasn't much anything else to make it transitional, they decided there must be something wrong. So they broke the hip up and put in together again in the "right way". This is another fact that people just ignore. I think actually Google had a "Lucy day" when Lucy is clearly a hoax.
>The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html
2. This has not been thoroughly debunked at all. In fact over and over again the "missing link" turns out to be a fake. Or how about archaeopteryx? It has fully formed wings and feathers. Where is the creature with half wings and partial feathers? Surely feathers couldn't have developed overnight! Yet it simply doesn't exist.
3. It's convincing for "most people". Well it's not convincing for a lot of others. So should the opposing position be censored? I don't think so.
4. Speed of evolution. Observing the mutation rate of Malaria is instructive. It is a eukaryotes, not a prokaryote, so is much more similar to our cell structure. Up to 1 trillion malaria organisms can infect the host. 250 million get malaria per year. That's up to 250 million trillion organisms per year. Which is millions of times the number of generations between monkeys and people. Yet it takes years for malaria to develop a resistance to a single anti malarial drug. There is no way the far more complex transition from monkeys to humans occurred in 1/1millionth of the number of generations. The rate of evolution is simply too slow.
To your edit: the Bible is meant to be allegorical in some parts. But as for creation, trying to somehow rectify the Bible + evolution is no good. The Bible says God created them so they would reproduce according to their "kind" https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=e...
This is exactly what we see in the fossils. When something shows up in the record, it stays the same.
Thanks for engaging, not downvoting! Your a cool guy (or girl)
>The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html
2. This has not been thoroughly debunked at all. In fact over and over again the "missing link" turns out to be a fake. Or how about archaeopteryx? It has fully formed wings and feathers. Where is the creature with half wings and partial feathers? Surely feathers couldn't have developed overnight! Yet it simply doesn't exist.
3. It's convincing for "most people". Well it's not convincing for a lot of others. So should the opposing position be censored? I don't think so.
4. Speed of evolution. Observing the mutation rate of Malaria is instructive. It is a eukaryotes, not a prokaryote, so is much more similar to our cell structure. Up to 1 trillion malaria organisms can infect the host. 250 million get malaria per year. That's up to 250 million trillion organisms per year. Which is millions of times the number of generations between monkeys and people. Yet it takes years for malaria to develop a resistance to a single anti malarial drug. There is no way the far more complex transition from monkeys to humans occurred in 1/1millionth of the number of generations. The rate of evolution is simply too slow.
To your edit: the Bible is meant to be allegorical in some parts. But as for creation, trying to somehow rectify the Bible + evolution is no good. The Bible says God created them so they would reproduce according to their "kind" https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=e...
This is exactly what we see in the fossils. When something shows up in the record, it stays the same.
Thanks for engaging, not downvoting! Your a cool guy (or girl)
You wrote "the hip looked just like a chimpanzee hip". The PBS link you gave says "Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human." The term "resembled" is much weaker and broader than your phrase "just like."
Elsewhere in the same transcript it says "[Lucy] didn't look like anything we had ever found before." and "Lucy had an ape-like face with a brain just a little larger than a chimps." If Lucy looked "just like a chimp" then what explains these quotes about the differences?
Because it sounds to me like you are cherry picking and distorting quotes, which is a standard creationist practice.
Earlier you wrote that humans separated from monkeys 10,000 years ago. This of course is not true. How old do you think Lucy is?
Lucy is not the only Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found. This includes AL 129-1 found by the same Don Johnson you quoted. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AL_129-1 : "It is estimated to be 3.4 million years old.[1] Its characteristics include an elliptical Lateral condyle and an oblique femoral shaft like that found in humans, indicating bipedalism."
Or there's AL 333-160. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis : "The foot bone shows that the species had arches in its feet, which confirmed that the species walked upright for the majority of the time.[33] The foot bone is one of 49 new bones discovered, and indicates that A. afarensis is "a lot more human-like than we had ever supposed before", according to the lead scientist on the study.[34]"
Or Selam, "Here we describe a well-preserved 3.3-million-year-old juvenile partial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis discovered in the Dikika research area of Ethiopia. The skull of the approximately three-year-old presumed female shows that most features diagnostic of the species are evident even at this early stage of development. The find includes many previously unknown skeletal elements from the Pliocene hominin record, including a hyoid bone that has a typical African ape {hominid} morphology. The foot and other evidence from the lower limb provide clear evidence for bipedal locomotion, but the gorilla-like scapula and long and curved manual phalanges raise new questions about the importance of arboreal behaviour in the A. afarensis" (using the quote by Alemseged et. al from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selam_(Australopithecus) .
So even discarding the reconstruction of Lucy's hip, there is other evidence that A. afarensis was bipedal in way that chimps are not.
You write "Where is the creature with half wings and partial feathers?" This is not how evolution works.
To begin with, feathers existed long before wings. Sinosauropteryx is an example of a non-avian dinosaur with feathers. We've found feathers on Epidexipteryx, from 160-170 million years ago, which is 10 million years before Archaeopteryx. Hardly "overnight".
The "half wing" is a standard creationist argument, but essentially meaningless. First, there are many definition of "wing". If I stick my hand out the window of a moving car, I can use it to get upward lift. That makes it a wing.
Under this definition, the body of a Paradise flying snake is a wing, even though it looks nothing like a bird or bat wing. Unlike my hand, but like birds, the wing property of the snake body is the result of adaptive selection.
The evolutionary argument is that "wing" is a continuum of abilities, from very poor wing to a very good wing. All of them are wings. None of them are "half wings".
What a creationist will do is place absurd requirements on what a "wing" is such that any evolutionary reasonable interpretation for "half a wing" is disqualified for not being a wing.
That would be like saying that email didn't exist until the late 1970s because no previous system implemented the 32 distinct components that Ayyadurai says were needed to be "email".
You write "When something shows up in the record, it stays the same". As I pointed out earlier, that's because species labels "are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation", to quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil . When things change, we call it a new species. It is not a fundamental reflection of the biology.
Elsewhere in the same transcript it says "[Lucy] didn't look like anything we had ever found before." and "Lucy had an ape-like face with a brain just a little larger than a chimps." If Lucy looked "just like a chimp" then what explains these quotes about the differences?
Because it sounds to me like you are cherry picking and distorting quotes, which is a standard creationist practice.
Earlier you wrote that humans separated from monkeys 10,000 years ago. This of course is not true. How old do you think Lucy is?
Lucy is not the only Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found. This includes AL 129-1 found by the same Don Johnson you quoted. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AL_129-1 : "It is estimated to be 3.4 million years old.[1] Its characteristics include an elliptical Lateral condyle and an oblique femoral shaft like that found in humans, indicating bipedalism."
Or there's AL 333-160. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis : "The foot bone shows that the species had arches in its feet, which confirmed that the species walked upright for the majority of the time.[33] The foot bone is one of 49 new bones discovered, and indicates that A. afarensis is "a lot more human-like than we had ever supposed before", according to the lead scientist on the study.[34]"
Or Selam, "Here we describe a well-preserved 3.3-million-year-old juvenile partial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis discovered in the Dikika research area of Ethiopia. The skull of the approximately three-year-old presumed female shows that most features diagnostic of the species are evident even at this early stage of development. The find includes many previously unknown skeletal elements from the Pliocene hominin record, including a hyoid bone that has a typical African ape {hominid} morphology. The foot and other evidence from the lower limb provide clear evidence for bipedal locomotion, but the gorilla-like scapula and long and curved manual phalanges raise new questions about the importance of arboreal behaviour in the A. afarensis" (using the quote by Alemseged et. al from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selam_(Australopithecus) .
So even discarding the reconstruction of Lucy's hip, there is other evidence that A. afarensis was bipedal in way that chimps are not.
You write "Where is the creature with half wings and partial feathers?" This is not how evolution works.
To begin with, feathers existed long before wings. Sinosauropteryx is an example of a non-avian dinosaur with feathers. We've found feathers on Epidexipteryx, from 160-170 million years ago, which is 10 million years before Archaeopteryx. Hardly "overnight".
The "half wing" is a standard creationist argument, but essentially meaningless. First, there are many definition of "wing". If I stick my hand out the window of a moving car, I can use it to get upward lift. That makes it a wing.
Under this definition, the body of a Paradise flying snake is a wing, even though it looks nothing like a bird or bat wing. Unlike my hand, but like birds, the wing property of the snake body is the result of adaptive selection.
The evolutionary argument is that "wing" is a continuum of abilities, from very poor wing to a very good wing. All of them are wings. None of them are "half wings".
What a creationist will do is place absurd requirements on what a "wing" is such that any evolutionary reasonable interpretation for "half a wing" is disqualified for not being a wing.
That would be like saying that email didn't exist until the late 1970s because no previous system implemented the 32 distinct components that Ayyadurai says were needed to be "email".
You write "When something shows up in the record, it stays the same". As I pointed out earlier, that's because species labels "are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation", to quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil . When things change, we call it a new species. It is not a fundamental reflection of the biology.
First your right about the 10k years thing. I misspoke, estimates are on the order of millions of years. But my point still stands at 10 million vs 1 billion. Anyways, all these dates are complete conjecture. Nobody really knows how old anything is, or what the effect of ice ages, meteors, etc. would be.
As for the rest of the interview, this guy is lying through his teeth when he says "Lucy had a brain just a bit larger than a chimp's" There is no possible way to get this from the bones. Here is a picture of what they found of "Lucy":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reconstruction_of_the_fos...
These guys just make stuff up, probably to get more fame and funding. I just found another link, turns out they found a baboon bone in the skeleton! The reason that the hip is so important is because it's the only thing that's really fully formed enough to say it looks human (note that lucy is about 3.5 feet tall, the size of a chimp).
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27325-baboon-bone-fou...
As for Epidexipteryx, first, sure I will grant that it has something close to feathers, but it's still a weak argument, because they are in the wrong place! There must be a birdlike animal that has partially formed feathers on it's wings. Unfortunately, fossils are rarely preserved well, and it is difficult to tell what is actually happening. Combine that with scientists' desire for fame, and you get sketchy results like lucy
As for the rest of the interview, this guy is lying through his teeth when he says "Lucy had a brain just a bit larger than a chimp's" There is no possible way to get this from the bones. Here is a picture of what they found of "Lucy":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reconstruction_of_the_fos...
These guys just make stuff up, probably to get more fame and funding. I just found another link, turns out they found a baboon bone in the skeleton! The reason that the hip is so important is because it's the only thing that's really fully formed enough to say it looks human (note that lucy is about 3.5 feet tall, the size of a chimp).
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27325-baboon-bone-fou...
As for Epidexipteryx, first, sure I will grant that it has something close to feathers, but it's still a weak argument, because they are in the wrong place! There must be a birdlike animal that has partially formed feathers on it's wings. Unfortunately, fossils are rarely preserved well, and it is difficult to tell what is actually happening. Combine that with scientists' desire for fame, and you get sketchy results like lucy
> There is no possible way to get this from the bones. Here is a picture of what they found of "Lucy"
http://www.efossils.org/book/how-big-was-lucys-brain
> Fossil remains of Lucy’s braincase are fragmentary, limiting the reconstruction of her brain size. However, brain size estimates from other members of her species suggest that Lucy’s brain was probably about the size of a modern chimpanzee’s (range between 387 – 550 cc; average 446 cc)
Try again
> These guys just make stuff up, probably to get more fame and funding.
> Combine that with scientists' desire for fame, and you get sketchy results like lucy
Why creationists are so quick to call others liars and frauds?
Funny thing is that they don't even understand the science and only sput the same debunked thing found in sites like answersingenesis et al.
And funnier, this is just a thing in some Christian denominations in USA and in some Muslim countries like Turkey.
The whole majority of the world doesn't believe the bullshit those people spout
http://www.efossils.org/book/how-big-was-lucys-brain
> Fossil remains of Lucy’s braincase are fragmentary, limiting the reconstruction of her brain size. However, brain size estimates from other members of her species suggest that Lucy’s brain was probably about the size of a modern chimpanzee’s (range between 387 – 550 cc; average 446 cc)
Try again
> These guys just make stuff up, probably to get more fame and funding.
> Combine that with scientists' desire for fame, and you get sketchy results like lucy
Why creationists are so quick to call others liars and frauds?
Funny thing is that they don't even understand the science and only sput the same debunked thing found in sites like answersingenesis et al.
And funnier, this is just a thing in some Christian denominations in USA and in some Muslim countries like Turkey.
The whole majority of the world doesn't believe the bullshit those people spout
What does it mean to "really know" something? I might not "really know" something if the estimated standard deviation is +/- 10% when I really want it to be +/- 0.1%. While for some things the estimated error is +/- 0.00001 % or smaller. (For that matter, Heisenberg says we'll never "really know" the position and velocity of a particle.)
We don't "really know" the effects of the ice ages, but we know a lot of the effects. We don't "really know" what the effect of a major meteorite strike, but we have some idea of its effects.
We know enough about both topics to draw some reasonable conclusions based on multiple trails of evidence.
We know how to date things well enough to be able to date things far better than "10 million vs 1 billion" years. Creationists love to challenge the potassium-argon dating used in East Africa for early hominid remains. While there was controversy early on with, say, the dating of the KBS Tuff, as http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD031.html covers, that link points out there are now multiple different methods by different people which agree on a time around 1.9 million years ago, with a +/- of about 1%. This is a well-studied topic because understanding it is so important for the story of human evolution.
I have read enough about the science behind reconstruction from bone fragments to get the sense that it's a reasonable science, and to realize that it is a specialized skill that depends on intensive understanding of many different animals. Just because neither you nor I can make much sense of those fragments doesn't mean that others cannot.
In any case, there's no reason to trust their interpretation. As I pointed out before, Lucy is not the only A. afarensis fossil. AL 444-2 is the complete skull of an A. afarensis male. It's larger than Lucy; the assumption is sexual dimorphism. That makes the AL 444-2 skull even less like a chimp than Lucy, yet they are of the same species, which you say is a chimp.
Furthermore, reconstruction is eminently testable. Here are two I thought of: 1) How well does the reconstruction match more complete skeletons found later, and 2) create a 3D model of part of a known skull and do a double-blind test to see how well the reconstruction matches the skull. If people mostly "made stuff up" then it would easily be discovered.
The New Scientist link is clear to say "He stresses, though, that the analysis, which he will present at a meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society in San Francisco next week, also confirms that the other 88 fossil fragments belonging to Lucy’s skeleton are correctly identified. And the mislabelled baboon bone fragment doesn’t undermine Lucy’s important position in the evolution of our lineage.".
Furthermore the actual paper says "This work does not refute previous work on Lucy or its importance for human evolution, but rather highlights the importance of studying original fossils, as well as the efficacy of the scientific method."
And again, why is all of your focus on Lucy? We have other A. afarensis fossils which give us even more details about bipedal adaptations.
You write "they are in the wrong place". And your point is ... what exactly? Evolutionary theory predicts that existing structures get adapted for new uses, including to change place. Also, "right place" implies that somehow those early feathers were in the wrong place. They weren't. They were only in a different place.
You write "There must be a birdlike animal that has partially formed feathers on it's wings". No. Feathers came first. They were always fully formed, but in a different form. By analogy, there's no such thing as a giraffe with a partially formed neck, only earlier giraffe-like animals with a fully-formed but shorter neck.
"Combine that with scientists' desire for fame". What a silly argument. First, scientists are humans, and yes many humans want fame and will do short-cuts to achieve it. Do you have any evidence that scientists are more prone to that than other fields?
That said, there are many easier ways to fame than to become a scientist, fame built on sketchy research is fragile, and one way to become famous is to show that someone else is wrong or even a fraud. For example, Ioannidis became famous as a result of his paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False".
Furthermore, over time it becomes more difficult to produce sketchy new results which are consistent with the existing body of work. At some point it's easier to do non-sketchy work. (Like the old observation that it was easier to go to the Moon than to fake the Moon landing.)
Most of the scientists I know are not in the field to become famous, and they know they will never be famous. How many famous paleontologists do you think there can be? How many paleontologists are there?
We don't "really know" the effects of the ice ages, but we know a lot of the effects. We don't "really know" what the effect of a major meteorite strike, but we have some idea of its effects.
We know enough about both topics to draw some reasonable conclusions based on multiple trails of evidence.
We know how to date things well enough to be able to date things far better than "10 million vs 1 billion" years. Creationists love to challenge the potassium-argon dating used in East Africa for early hominid remains. While there was controversy early on with, say, the dating of the KBS Tuff, as http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD031.html covers, that link points out there are now multiple different methods by different people which agree on a time around 1.9 million years ago, with a +/- of about 1%. This is a well-studied topic because understanding it is so important for the story of human evolution.
I have read enough about the science behind reconstruction from bone fragments to get the sense that it's a reasonable science, and to realize that it is a specialized skill that depends on intensive understanding of many different animals. Just because neither you nor I can make much sense of those fragments doesn't mean that others cannot.
In any case, there's no reason to trust their interpretation. As I pointed out before, Lucy is not the only A. afarensis fossil. AL 444-2 is the complete skull of an A. afarensis male. It's larger than Lucy; the assumption is sexual dimorphism. That makes the AL 444-2 skull even less like a chimp than Lucy, yet they are of the same species, which you say is a chimp.
Furthermore, reconstruction is eminently testable. Here are two I thought of: 1) How well does the reconstruction match more complete skeletons found later, and 2) create a 3D model of part of a known skull and do a double-blind test to see how well the reconstruction matches the skull. If people mostly "made stuff up" then it would easily be discovered.
The New Scientist link is clear to say "He stresses, though, that the analysis, which he will present at a meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society in San Francisco next week, also confirms that the other 88 fossil fragments belonging to Lucy’s skeleton are correctly identified. And the mislabelled baboon bone fragment doesn’t undermine Lucy’s important position in the evolution of our lineage.".
Furthermore the actual paper says "This work does not refute previous work on Lucy or its importance for human evolution, but rather highlights the importance of studying original fossils, as well as the efficacy of the scientific method."
And again, why is all of your focus on Lucy? We have other A. afarensis fossils which give us even more details about bipedal adaptations.
You write "they are in the wrong place". And your point is ... what exactly? Evolutionary theory predicts that existing structures get adapted for new uses, including to change place. Also, "right place" implies that somehow those early feathers were in the wrong place. They weren't. They were only in a different place.
You write "There must be a birdlike animal that has partially formed feathers on it's wings". No. Feathers came first. They were always fully formed, but in a different form. By analogy, there's no such thing as a giraffe with a partially formed neck, only earlier giraffe-like animals with a fully-formed but shorter neck.
"Combine that with scientists' desire for fame". What a silly argument. First, scientists are humans, and yes many humans want fame and will do short-cuts to achieve it. Do you have any evidence that scientists are more prone to that than other fields?
That said, there are many easier ways to fame than to become a scientist, fame built on sketchy research is fragile, and one way to become famous is to show that someone else is wrong or even a fraud. For example, Ioannidis became famous as a result of his paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False".
Furthermore, over time it becomes more difficult to produce sketchy new results which are consistent with the existing body of work. At some point it's easier to do non-sketchy work. (Like the old observation that it was easier to go to the Moon than to fake the Moon landing.)
Most of the scientists I know are not in the field to become famous, and they know they will never be famous. How many famous paleontologists do you think there can be? How many paleontologists are there?
"Macroevolution" in modern biological theory is microevolution acting across geological timescales.
"Geological timesscales" is far longer than "tens of thousands of years".
"Testing" is a more encompassing term than "experimentation". To give an example, a test of evolutionary theory is the prediction that the transition from fish to amphibians started during the Devonian. Indeed, after years of work, Tiktaalik fossils were found in Devonian rock. Evolutionary science is full of tests like these.
As I understand it, you also do not consider astrophysics to be a science.
There are many transitional fossils, including Tiktaalik. The transitional fossils for cetacean history make a quite lovely series. All fossils of a given species are "very similar" for the simple reason that the species labels "are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation", to quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil .
What aspects of the Cambrian explosion are you talking about? There is much we don't know about it, but nothing which forces us to reject well-established evolutionary theory.
Modern humans evolved from archaic humans starting about 200,000 years ago. Archaic humans evolved from Homo erectus, which evolved from Homo habilis, which evolved from Australopithecus, etc. The common ancestor of humans, chimps, and bonobos was about 10 million years ago. The common ancestor of humans and the non-ape monkeys was about 29 million years ago.
This is far longer than the 10k years you mentioned. For that matter, we have found human remains from Combe-Capelle, La Brea, Cheddar, and Kow Swamp which are about 10k years old. Are you seriously proposing that humans "jumped" into existence 10K years ago and within 1K years were found from North America to Australia?
You write "Monkeys have the intelligence according to tests of a 2 and 1/2 years old". But "monkey" isn't a species name, so what you wrote is meaningless.
"Monkey" has multiple meanings. Humans are part of the family of Old World monkeys, so yes, humans are monkeys. However, apes, including humans, are traditionally not included as a monkey in that sense, making "monkey" a polyphyletic term.
All told, your critique shows no real knowledge of the evolutionary theory that you are trying to challenge. I would much rather have inconvenient facts than the fabrications you presented.
"Geological timesscales" is far longer than "tens of thousands of years".
"Testing" is a more encompassing term than "experimentation". To give an example, a test of evolutionary theory is the prediction that the transition from fish to amphibians started during the Devonian. Indeed, after years of work, Tiktaalik fossils were found in Devonian rock. Evolutionary science is full of tests like these.
As I understand it, you also do not consider astrophysics to be a science.
There are many transitional fossils, including Tiktaalik. The transitional fossils for cetacean history make a quite lovely series. All fossils of a given species are "very similar" for the simple reason that the species labels "are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation", to quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil .
What aspects of the Cambrian explosion are you talking about? There is much we don't know about it, but nothing which forces us to reject well-established evolutionary theory.
Modern humans evolved from archaic humans starting about 200,000 years ago. Archaic humans evolved from Homo erectus, which evolved from Homo habilis, which evolved from Australopithecus, etc. The common ancestor of humans, chimps, and bonobos was about 10 million years ago. The common ancestor of humans and the non-ape monkeys was about 29 million years ago.
This is far longer than the 10k years you mentioned. For that matter, we have found human remains from Combe-Capelle, La Brea, Cheddar, and Kow Swamp which are about 10k years old. Are you seriously proposing that humans "jumped" into existence 10K years ago and within 1K years were found from North America to Australia?
You write "Monkeys have the intelligence according to tests of a 2 and 1/2 years old". But "monkey" isn't a species name, so what you wrote is meaningless.
"Monkey" has multiple meanings. Humans are part of the family of Old World monkeys, so yes, humans are monkeys. However, apes, including humans, are traditionally not included as a monkey in that sense, making "monkey" a polyphyletic term.
All told, your critique shows no real knowledge of the evolutionary theory that you are trying to challenge. I would much rather have inconvenient facts than the fabrications you presented.
> As for science, macro evolutionary theory isn't even science. The scientific method requires testing and 200 years isn't long enough to verify something that takes tens of thousands of years to occur
Lensky experiment, try another thing
> Darwin said if he was right the ground would be full of innumerable transitional fossils.
Darwin published his booke more than 100 years ago. Science has advanced a lot since then
> and yet was able to jump from a monkey to a human in 10k years
What?
> There are a lot of holes in evolutionary theory
Examples
Lensky experiment, try another thing
> Darwin said if he was right the ground would be full of innumerable transitional fossils.
Darwin published his booke more than 100 years ago. Science has advanced a lot since then
> and yet was able to jump from a monkey to a human in 10k years
What?
> There are a lot of holes in evolutionary theory
Examples
Have you actually tried finding answers to all your questions? I assure you, those answers already exist if you actually look.
The fact that you don't bother to look is an indication of how weak your opinion/faith really is.
> And all this is made worse by the fact that somehow evolution spent billions of years unable to move past unicellular organisms, and yet was able to jump from a monkey to a human in 10k years? Monkeys have the intelligence according to tests of a 2 and 1/2 years old. The difference is astonishing and yet supposedly happened in an exceedingly short period of time, when life couldn't get out of the bacteria stage for a billion years?
This bit in particular stood out for how poorly informed you are, the last common ancestor between humans and monkeys was 8-6 million years ago. You are no where near informed enough on evolution to criticize it at all.
The fact that you don't bother to look is an indication of how weak your opinion/faith really is.
> And all this is made worse by the fact that somehow evolution spent billions of years unable to move past unicellular organisms, and yet was able to jump from a monkey to a human in 10k years? Monkeys have the intelligence according to tests of a 2 and 1/2 years old. The difference is astonishing and yet supposedly happened in an exceedingly short period of time, when life couldn't get out of the bacteria stage for a billion years?
This bit in particular stood out for how poorly informed you are, the last common ancestor between humans and monkeys was 8-6 million years ago. You are no where near informed enough on evolution to criticize it at all.
And yet here you are advocating shutting up conservative ideas
Untrue. Jemfrost critiqued conservatism, rather than calling for it to be shut down. If you can't deal with criticism. I'd like to address the rest of your objections, but your starting out with such self-evident falsehoods suggests I'd be wasting my time.
Untrue. Jemfrost critiqued conservatism, rather than calling for it to be shut down. If you can't deal with criticism. I'd like to address the rest of your objections, but your starting out with such self-evident falsehoods suggests I'd be wasting my time.
[deleted]
The only logical course of action is to file complaints demanding the inclusion of controversial topics and the removal of anything the anti-science crowd campaigns for.
I'm a Florida resident, but not a parent. I don't know what kids are being taught these days. I'd like to help, if I can.
I'm a Florida resident, but not a parent. I don't know what kids are being taught these days. I'd like to help, if I can.
Advocate for the inclusion of the FSM theory of creation. It's only fair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
The risk is, since any challenges have to go through an "unbiased hearing officer" whose job exists to remove scientific teachings from the schools, they would just reject any challenges against creationism, etc.
Which is to say, it should be tried, but it's designed not to succeed.
Which is to say, it should be tried, but it's designed not to succeed.
Might be a fun system upon which to use Alinsky's fourth rule: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
I soon wonder if facts will be tools only of the elite (again?). Facts and science allow you to understand the world and produce things of lasting value, which everyone buys/uses. But instead, we teach kids nonsense, mostly because their parents don't remember things from school, or didn't go to school themselves. Most people don't know enough science to explain how the seasons work, let alone climate change, but everyone has an opinion that must be treated respectfully.
Yet we keep talking about how people need marketable STEM skills to stay relevant in today and tomorrow's economy.
The cognitive dissonance is blinding.
Yet we keep talking about how people need marketable STEM skills to stay relevant in today and tomorrow's economy.
The cognitive dissonance is blinding.
All empires fall and we are witnessing the beginning of the fall of the US empire. Destroying the major thing US leads in science and education while destroying relationships with a lot of it's allies.
I think this is perhaps overstating the difference over the status quo. Scientific knowledge has always been very unevenly distributed in the U.S. Its victory in WW2 could be interpreted as the guys in Washington using technologies devised by the guys at MIT/Princeton/Berkeley/Stanford/UChicago to send guys born in Florida and Georgia to their deaths overseas.
This is not all that different from the present day: the guys in Washington still use technologies developed by the guys in Massachusetts and California to send the guys from Florida and Georgia to their deaths overseas. If you visit a high school in Palo Alto CA or Lexington MA, you will still find huge numbers of scientific overachievers.
This is not all that different from the present day: the guys in Washington still use technologies developed by the guys in Massachusetts and California to send the guys from Florida and Georgia to their deaths overseas. If you visit a high school in Palo Alto CA or Lexington MA, you will still find huge numbers of scientific overachievers.
Empires usually last centuries, and get off to various shaky starts. I think these are just teething problems at the start of a long reign. (I am not American.) High debt, mass unrest, controversy, and factionalism all coexist to some degree at the start of what later became very long-lived empires.
I think people forget just how young the US is. When you look at the big picture, it's actually pretty amazing how far it's come in such a short amount of time.
I just recently remembered again that my home town is almost 600 years older than the US.
So yeah, the US is pretty young in comparison to most other nations.
The town I live in was originally founded in 785 CE but always feels young to me -- the town I grew up in was originally founded in 38 BCE.
Then I remember how much of the US didn't even exist two centuries ago.
Then I remember how much of the US didn't even exist two centuries ago.
I live in Milan (Italy). It was conquered by the Romans back in 222 BC. I was born in Bristol (UK). It has had a royal charter since 1155 AD.
It's easy to come a long way with a continent's worth of almost-free resources and little indigenous capacity for opposition (due to simpler technology and relatively small populations).
> Empires usually last centuries, and get off to various shaky starts.
I think there might be some confirmation bias here. A lot of the big ones we learn about in history lasted that long, but there were many that only lasted decades or a few generations at most. The Alexandrian Empire didn't outlast the death of Alexander, the Carolingian Empire didn't make the century mark, The golden horde only lasted a few generations, many of the early Mesopotamian empires came and went in decades, etc.
I think there might be some confirmation bias here. A lot of the big ones we learn about in history lasted that long, but there were many that only lasted decades or a few generations at most. The Alexandrian Empire didn't outlast the death of Alexander, the Carolingian Empire didn't make the century mark, The golden horde only lasted a few generations, many of the early Mesopotamian empires came and went in decades, etc.
its allies
Whenever she was asked how does she feel about being stuck in a perpetual educational reform fueled by politics she said: That is what I like about math, I've been teaching the Pythagorean theorem for 20 years and it is still the same.
I like this.
Let us encourage people everywhere to ask more questions. We need it badly.
Let us encourage people everywhere to ask more questions. We need it badly.
While the title of the article makes it seem like a good (or at least neutral) thing, the content of the article makes it quite clear that this is going to be a gift to the anti-science crowd.
So no, it won't encourage people to think, it will just give more weapons to climate-change deniers and abstinence-only sex ed supporters.
So no, it won't encourage people to think, it will just give more weapons to climate-change deniers and abstinence-only sex ed supporters.
> a gift to the anti-science crowd...
How can this be a gift if science can answer the all the questions of "anti-science" crowd? Or may be deep down, we not really sure about our answers?
How can this be a gift if science can answer the all the questions of "anti-science" crowd? Or may be deep down, we not really sure about our answers?
> Or may be deep down, we not really sure about our answers?
Because removal won't necessarily be decided by a scientist. It will be decided by someone appointed by the school board.
Also there are guidelines for removal of stuff on the basis of the "belief that the material is “pornographic”".
This has nothing to do with the certanity of science (which is not an absolute, anyway) or the fact that "deep down we're not really sure".
Because removal won't necessarily be decided by a scientist. It will be decided by someone appointed by the school board.
Also there are guidelines for removal of stuff on the basis of the "belief that the material is “pornographic”".
This has nothing to do with the certanity of science (which is not an absolute, anyway) or the fact that "deep down we're not really sure".
It is a gift because the bill doesn't talk about the validity of the science
This enters the realm of politics where everything is up in the air.
(Peer-reviewed) Science is pretty much considered fact.
The only crowds this will benefit are as said above climate-change deniers (because they fear for their profits from fossil fuels), abstinence-only sex ed supporters(because they're blinded by their religious superstitions), anti-vaxxers (who consider one falsified and later retracted "study" as "evidence" that vaccines somehow cause autism).
This benefits them because it gives them a stage on which to present their bullshit and manipulate people a lot easier. This is pretty similar to how the Somali community in Minnesota was influenced to be anti-vaxxers and now look at the result [0]...
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/measles-outbreak-rag...
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/measles-outbreak-rag...
> it gives them a stage on which to present their bullshit and manipulate people a lot easier.
My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose?
> manipulate people a lot easier.
So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right?
My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose?
> manipulate people a lot easier.
So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right?
Where do these critical thinking skills to detect bullshit come from? Look at all the bullshit we inherited from Aristotle. No one even thought to think it was bullshit until people came along and said "let's see" and actually started performing experiments and thus introducing the Scientific Age. Ask any small child which will object will fall faster: a 10 Kg weight or a 5 Kg weight and they'll unanimously say the 10 Kg weight.
So not only are we dealing with anthropological biases we're also dealing with logic: not all bullshit can be shown to be bullshit. One of the most famous examples is my assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars. You say that's bullshit. Now I say prove it's bullshit, prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbit of Earth and Mars! You can't. You can't prove that's bullshit.
It's at this point you may realize the tables have been subtly turned against you. You see, I made the assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. It's not on you to prove that's bullshit, it's on me to provide evidence of my assertion.
So, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to lose? Everything.
Edit: changed 'You say' to 'You see'
So not only are we dealing with anthropological biases we're also dealing with logic: not all bullshit can be shown to be bullshit. One of the most famous examples is my assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars. You say that's bullshit. Now I say prove it's bullshit, prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbit of Earth and Mars! You can't. You can't prove that's bullshit.
It's at this point you may realize the tables have been subtly turned against you. You see, I made the assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. It's not on you to prove that's bullshit, it's on me to provide evidence of my assertion.
So, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to lose? Everything.
Edit: changed 'You say' to 'You see'
You are entirely missing the point. The point is that both sides are prone to spouting bullshit (or selective truths) (for what ever reasons), so no side should be forced to silence...
> The point is that both sides are prone to spouting bullshit
I expect that you can provide examples of this. Until now, the ones spouting bullshit is the anti science one.
I expect that you can provide examples of this. Until now, the ones spouting bullshit is the anti science one.
>I expect that you can provide examples of this
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-fda-drug...
So when an authority says that something is safe, and later turn out not to be so, isn't the original claim just bullshit? Or is it not bullshit because that is the best we could have done, but we still sold it as legit, without saying about the flaws in our process, which is why I mentioned selectively saying the truth...
I am pretty sure one can come up with other serious cases where "science" of today turned out to be bullshit later. The famous study that both ant and pro vaxxers tout are a very good example. Pretty sure that have been similar issues recently regarding diet, pesticide use, use of plastics and stuff like that...
EDIT: Ultimately, I think the majority of what we consider as "science" today (except maths/physics) is a somewhat grey area and is prone to various kinds of manipulation should not be really accepted without any sort of challenge. And just because something is peer reviewed does not make it the word of god...
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-fda-drug...
So when an authority says that something is safe, and later turn out not to be so, isn't the original claim just bullshit? Or is it not bullshit because that is the best we could have done, but we still sold it as legit, without saying about the flaws in our process, which is why I mentioned selectively saying the truth...
I am pretty sure one can come up with other serious cases where "science" of today turned out to be bullshit later. The famous study that both ant and pro vaxxers tout are a very good example. Pretty sure that have been similar issues recently regarding diet, pesticide use, use of plastics and stuff like that...
EDIT: Ultimately, I think the majority of what we consider as "science" today (except maths/physics) is a somewhat grey area and is prone to various kinds of manipulation should not be really accepted without any sort of challenge. And just because something is peer reviewed does not make it the word of god...
> So when an authority says that something is safe, and later turn out not to be so, isn't the original claim just bullshit?
No, it is not bullshit.
> The famous study that both ant and pro vaxxers tout are a very good example
Are you talking about the study that the people that has passed this bill would be glad to use?
Yes, that study was bullshit and a fraud, and no, the pro vaccination people didn't did ant bullshit. > EDIT: Ultimately, I think the majority of what we consider as "science" today (except maths/physics) is a somewhat grey area and is prone to various kinds of manipulation should not be really accepted without any sort of challenge. And just because something is peer reviewed does not make it the word of god...
No, it is not the word of god, but when a topic has been proved for decades and innumerable experiments it is fairly sure that the science is sound.
And yes, I'm talking about the Theory of Evolution and Climate Change basis. The TWO topics that this bill will be against.
By the way, one is a physics topic.
No, it is not bullshit.
> The famous study that both ant and pro vaxxers tout are a very good example
Are you talking about the study that the people that has passed this bill would be glad to use?
Yes, that study was bullshit and a fraud, and no, the pro vaccination people didn't did ant bullshit. > EDIT: Ultimately, I think the majority of what we consider as "science" today (except maths/physics) is a somewhat grey area and is prone to various kinds of manipulation should not be really accepted without any sort of challenge. And just because something is peer reviewed does not make it the word of god...
No, it is not the word of god, but when a topic has been proved for decades and innumerable experiments it is fairly sure that the science is sound.
And yes, I'm talking about the Theory of Evolution and Climate Change basis. The TWO topics that this bill will be against.
By the way, one is a physics topic.
There's an entire discipline regarding how and when science switches paradigms, to borrow a Kuhnian word.
I think the best guard against any of this is the old Feynman test. Can you explain the idea sufficiently to a lay person that they can understand the idea? Then we understand it. Until then, there's more work to do and you cannot malign anyone for disbelieving you.
I think the best guard against any of this is the old Feynman test. Can you explain the idea sufficiently to a lay person that they can understand the idea? Then we understand it. Until then, there's more work to do and you cannot malign anyone for disbelieving you.
> There's an entire discipline regarding how and when science switches paradigms, to borrow a Kuhnian word.
Thing that has nothing to do with this bill
> I think the best guard against any of this is the old Feynman test.
And this has nothing to do with this bill.
Theory of Evolution and Climate change has been explained sufficiently in laymen terms to be comprehended by anyone.
What this bill does is trying to negate the science without having anything to do if it has been tested or explained in simple terms
Thing that has nothing to do with this bill
> I think the best guard against any of this is the old Feynman test.
And this has nothing to do with this bill.
Theory of Evolution and Climate change has been explained sufficiently in laymen terms to be comprehended by anyone.
What this bill does is trying to negate the science without having anything to do if it has been tested or explained in simple terms
"what is there to loose"
Time. There is a lot to cover in school. Time spent to cover all of the bullshit is time taken away from other topics. How much time should be spent in showing that bullshit like phrenology, blood type personality theory, Kirlian auras, the Hollow Earth theory, baraminology, and orgone energy is actually bullshit, and what existing topics should be covered less?
Cost of training. Young Earth Creationists over the last 56 years (dating from Henry Morris's "The Genesis Flood") have assembled a large collection of crappy arguments, every one of which has been shown to be invalid. Many of the counter-arguments are collected in sites like talkorigins.org.
However, it takes specialized knowledge to be able to counter each one. For an example from the talkorigins.org FAQ, suppose a student in physics class asks "I heard that the speed of light has changed a lot. This means that light from galaxies billions of light years away might not really be billions of years old. Is this true?"
How many physics teachers do you know are aware of Barry Setterfield's C-Decay hypothesis and the details of its flaws? How much time would it take to train all teachers to be able to show that each argument is bullshit, rather than simply say it's bullshit then move on?
Time. There is a lot to cover in school. Time spent to cover all of the bullshit is time taken away from other topics. How much time should be spent in showing that bullshit like phrenology, blood type personality theory, Kirlian auras, the Hollow Earth theory, baraminology, and orgone energy is actually bullshit, and what existing topics should be covered less?
Cost of training. Young Earth Creationists over the last 56 years (dating from Henry Morris's "The Genesis Flood") have assembled a large collection of crappy arguments, every one of which has been shown to be invalid. Many of the counter-arguments are collected in sites like talkorigins.org.
However, it takes specialized knowledge to be able to counter each one. For an example from the talkorigins.org FAQ, suppose a student in physics class asks "I heard that the speed of light has changed a lot. This means that light from galaxies billions of light years away might not really be billions of years old. Is this true?"
How many physics teachers do you know are aware of Barry Setterfield's C-Decay hypothesis and the details of its flaws? How much time would it take to train all teachers to be able to show that each argument is bullshit, rather than simply say it's bullshit then move on?
If a teacher does not know how to refute a claim or answer a question, they should research it, understand it and explain to the student who is asking the question. I mean, not everyone has to be taught about everything...
Of course there are topics that are way above the heads of teachers. But these are exceptions rather than the rule, I think. Just because some topics are super hard does not mean that all such things should be taken on faith in science...
Of course there are topics that are way above the heads of teachers. But these are exceptions rather than the rule, I think. Just because some topics are super hard does not mean that all such things should be taken on faith in science...
You expressed an ideal view of what teaching should be, and could be if there is the time and funding for it.
However, you did not actually address my points.
When is the teacher supposed to research it? Teachers are already busy at school, and many end up also working at home. Will they get extra time at work for this research, or will it be more unpaid work for them at home?
Or will some existing demands on their time be removed, and if so, which ones? Will those demands be eliminated, or will the school hire additional staff?
When is the teacher supposed to explain it to the student? Which other topics should be covered less or skipped?
On top of that, this is the state of Florida, which has been deprofessionalizing teachers. The state removed tenure a few years ago, and switched to yearly contracts. Lawyers for the state argued in court that "reports card are meaningless and don't show if someone can read at grade level". (See http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2017/06/fl-death-to-publi... for more examples.)
This is the state that won't require 20 minutes of daily unstructured playtime for elementary school because 'There is a lot of emphasis on performing well on the mandated tests,” United Teachers of Dade president Karla Hernandez-Mats said. “Therefore teachers focus on utilizing every minute of instructional time.” http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-po...
This despite research showing how important recess is for the physical, mental, and social development of elementary school children.
That development isn't on the standardized tests. Neither are oddball/bullshit questions. Florida is doing all it can to de-incentivize a teacher from taking the time to "research it, understand it and explain to the student who is asking the question".
However, you did not actually address my points.
When is the teacher supposed to research it? Teachers are already busy at school, and many end up also working at home. Will they get extra time at work for this research, or will it be more unpaid work for them at home?
Or will some existing demands on their time be removed, and if so, which ones? Will those demands be eliminated, or will the school hire additional staff?
When is the teacher supposed to explain it to the student? Which other topics should be covered less or skipped?
On top of that, this is the state of Florida, which has been deprofessionalizing teachers. The state removed tenure a few years ago, and switched to yearly contracts. Lawyers for the state argued in court that "reports card are meaningless and don't show if someone can read at grade level". (See http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2017/06/fl-death-to-publi... for more examples.)
This is the state that won't require 20 minutes of daily unstructured playtime for elementary school because 'There is a lot of emphasis on performing well on the mandated tests,” United Teachers of Dade president Karla Hernandez-Mats said. “Therefore teachers focus on utilizing every minute of instructional time.” http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-po...
This despite research showing how important recess is for the physical, mental, and social development of elementary school children.
That development isn't on the standardized tests. Neither are oddball/bullshit questions. Florida is doing all it can to de-incentivize a teacher from taking the time to "research it, understand it and explain to the student who is asking the question".
>You expressed an ideal view of what teaching should be...
ideal? Try minimal. What according to you is the minimum requirement for teaching? Orating a textbook in front of a class and map questions to answers and make students learn the mapping?
ideal? Try minimal. What according to you is the minimum requirement for teaching? Orating a textbook in front of a class and map questions to answers and make students learn the mapping?
Remember, we're talking about bullshit topics.
A teacher should be able to say that it's bullshit, or more politely "outside the scope of the class", and move on, without the obligation to research it further.
It doesn't even need to be a bullshit topic. If a student asks a math teacher "What is the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle?", do you really think the math teacher "should research it, understand it and explain to the student who is asking the question"?
No, I don't think so. Teachers are not there as custom research assistants.
Furthermore, at some point the student needs to learn to do independent research, rather than always expecting that the teacher will be able to explain it to a student. This won't happen if teachers always spoon-feed answers.
We could totally change the system so that teachers are able to research and answer off-the-wall topics. However, you have still not addressed my points. Who will pay for the training and time needed for the teachers to research and answer bullshit questions, and which material should be covered less in order to teach bullshit topics?
Also, some students will deliberately ask questions to derail the class. "I was just asking questions". The teacher should be be under no obligation to answer those questions, and in fact should be able to reprimand that sort of behavior.
A teacher should be able to say that it's bullshit, or more politely "outside the scope of the class", and move on, without the obligation to research it further.
It doesn't even need to be a bullshit topic. If a student asks a math teacher "What is the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle?", do you really think the math teacher "should research it, understand it and explain to the student who is asking the question"?
No, I don't think so. Teachers are not there as custom research assistants.
Furthermore, at some point the student needs to learn to do independent research, rather than always expecting that the teacher will be able to explain it to a student. This won't happen if teachers always spoon-feed answers.
We could totally change the system so that teachers are able to research and answer off-the-wall topics. However, you have still not addressed my points. Who will pay for the training and time needed for the teachers to research and answer bullshit questions, and which material should be covered less in order to teach bullshit topics?
Also, some students will deliberately ask questions to derail the class. "I was just asking questions". The teacher should be be under no obligation to answer those questions, and in fact should be able to reprimand that sort of behavior.
The bill is not to answer question, the bill is for removing material
"People" who spout nonsense again and again for some form of monetary gain or to live out and push on others their religious superstitions want to force their stance into the public eye through proposals like this.
> My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose? There are always easily manipulated people in the broad public who are being used to weaken the overall perception of validity and the trust in REAL science.
> So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right?
If they had any legitimate claim of sound science they would be perceived as such by the public and thus wouldn't need to push proposals like this. Such methods are used to bypass the peer-review process which is vital to ensure (new) findings are actually valid. This process also has the side-effect that "science" that's falsified/made up (like the autism-and-vaccines study that was falsified but was/is used to influence/manipulate vulnerable or naive parents) is weeded out.
> My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose? There are always easily manipulated people in the broad public who are being used to weaken the overall perception of validity and the trust in REAL science.
> So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right?
If they had any legitimate claim of sound science they would be perceived as such by the public and thus wouldn't need to push proposals like this. Such methods are used to bypass the peer-review process which is vital to ensure (new) findings are actually valid. This process also has the side-effect that "science" that's falsified/made up (like the autism-and-vaccines study that was falsified but was/is used to influence/manipulate vulnerable or naive parents) is weeded out.
> So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right?
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
> How can this be a gift if science can answer the all the questions of "anti-science" crowd?
Because it's not whether science can answer the questions, it's whether the hearing officers have any interest in answering the questions. And it's clear by the way the bill was designed, that the hearing officers will be chosen so that they do not.
Because it's not whether science can answer the questions, it's whether the hearing officers have any interest in answering the questions. And it's clear by the way the bill was designed, that the hearing officers will be chosen so that they do not.
Yup, and the first question on everyone's mind should of course be "proof, or faith?" The second, "to know, or to believe?" Seriously, the fricking Pope has more faith in science than the people who support these kinds of laws, at some point you gotta ask yourself "am I a good Christian, or a Christian extremist?" If the Pope distances himself from your religious practices, it's starting to look like the latter
The current pope is overturning hundreds of years of catholic doctrine. He's not a benchmark of a traditional Christian. Also, most American Christians aren't catholic.
> The current pope is overturning hundreds of years of catholic doctrine
Eh, no, for decades now the Catholic Church has been pro science and accepting scientific theories like Theory of Evolution, Big Bang theory, etc.
Eh, no, for decades now the Catholic Church has been pro science and accepting scientific theories like Theory of Evolution, Big Bang theory, etc.
That's not any of the stuff I'm talking about. Francis is, by far, the most outspoken supporter of homosexuality in recent papal history. Francis changed church policy in favor of divorces and annulments. He's also made many modern-liberal-friendly statements on abortion, environmental politics, economic inequality, and extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. He's very obviously retargeting church policy/optics in favor of a more liberal market. My guess is he's trying to pick up a bunch of atheist-by-birth millenials in the US and EU who tend to follow these politics.
But this does not follow a scientific process. People filing complaints don't need to disprove or prove anything taught. They just need to make the case that the material is not age appropriate. The criteria enployed are entirely subjective and unscientific.
The US is already settling far too many issues in court.
Issues like this are political questions which should be settled by a broad political debate rather than individuals creating endless courtcases in their local towns.
The US is already settling far too many issues in court.
Issues like this are political questions which should be settled by a broad political debate rather than individuals creating endless courtcases in their local towns.
Yes, people should start by standing up in church and debate the validity of sermons and their source material.
Actually not. In church you are supposed to have faith. Not so much so in science.
Why? If you are meant to question education, why not question pastors/vicars/preachers/televangelists/people of the cloth/faith healers/popes/bible thumpers/bishops/fire and brimstone merchants and Archdeacons?
why the double standard?
why the double standard?
The whole point of Christianity is faith. At least that's a very widespread interpretation with an educated basis.
If you aren't factoring that in to your comment, it comes off a little like you are trolling or being facile.
Accepting the literal truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a point of faith is arguably the only working definition of a "Christian."
If you aren't factoring that in to your comment, it comes off a little like you are trolling or being facile.
Accepting the literal truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a point of faith is arguably the only working definition of a "Christian."
sigh, not trolling. why not question everything?
If you have faith, why do you need to have churches?
why don't churches start "red teams" to debate the Word. so that people can be reassured by the certainty of the teachings to bolster faith?
If you have faith, why do you need to have churches?
why don't churches start "red teams" to debate the Word. so that people can be reassured by the certainty of the teachings to bolster faith?
A lot of hardcore evangelicals are actually not in favor of churches and prefer bible-reading peer groups, although these serve a similar function and are just as conformist, or more, than churches.
I don't feel like digging up references for this right now. Follow some fundamentalist Christians on FB if you want to have a look into a very different reality tunnel.
I don't feel like digging up references for this right now. Follow some fundamentalist Christians on FB if you want to have a look into a very different reality tunnel.
The content of religious texts and the nuance of interpretation is debated heavily by tons of religious people.
It's simply that if you believe more or less in the texts but don't have faith in that one fact, your beliefs are more in line with Jews or Muslims who believe Jesus was a prophet, but aren't so sold on the literal resurrection/savior/son of god/messiah aspect.
It's simply that if you believe more or less in the texts but don't have faith in that one fact, your beliefs are more in line with Jews or Muslims who believe Jesus was a prophet, but aren't so sold on the literal resurrection/savior/son of god/messiah aspect.
>why not question everything?
Because the point of belief is not finding truth (Doubt it ever was), but finding peace, comfort and may be a sense of community and togetherness..
Because the point of belief is not finding truth (Doubt it ever was), but finding peace, comfort and may be a sense of community and togetherness..
Right. And the point of science is the exploration of demonstrable facts. Belief and knowledge are two separate domains, and never the twain shall meet.
This is not historically accurate. For example, Newton was both an insanely awesome scientist and devoted theologian. Similarly Galileo said "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word". There is a large movement called "apologetics" in the Christian world which sees faith and reason and science as mutually compatible. Ravi Zacharias is one of the great Christian thinkers of today who explains this well.
I think the real thing is that most people just don't really care about science, Christian or no. Many atheists take the word of scientists with as much blind faith as christians take the word of their pastor.
I think the real thing is that most people just don't really care about science, Christian or no. Many atheists take the word of scientists with as much blind faith as christians take the word of their pastor.
> Many atheists take the word of scientists with as much blind faith as christians take the word of their pastor.
Any example of that?
Any example of that?
I think the problem is less that atheists take the word of scientists at their word, so much as people assume that because something is common, it is either safe, or true. It's the weird intersection of knowledge and belief.
Here in coastal communities many people are still allowed to do "overboard discharge," or dumping raw sewage into the ocean. The understanding being the ocean is so big we couldn't possibly hurt the ecosystem. Here in Maine, there have actually been many deeply flawed scientific studies that justified these policies as scientifically true.
Now, of course, we know how fragile the ocean and, indeed, any ecosystem is. But common belief is that science has shown that dumping your shit in the ocean is environmentally okay and that is used to justify a convenient action. Even though the action hardly passes the (literal) smell test.
Here in coastal communities many people are still allowed to do "overboard discharge," or dumping raw sewage into the ocean. The understanding being the ocean is so big we couldn't possibly hurt the ecosystem. Here in Maine, there have actually been many deeply flawed scientific studies that justified these policies as scientifically true.
Now, of course, we know how fragile the ocean and, indeed, any ecosystem is. But common belief is that science has shown that dumping your shit in the ocean is environmentally okay and that is used to justify a convenient action. Even though the action hardly passes the (literal) smell test.
> Many atheists take the word of scientists with as much blind faith as christians take the word of their pastor.
Can't agree more with this.
This is exactly why there should be a stage available to ask all kinds of questions without fearing shaming.
Can't agree more with this.
This is exactly why there should be a stage available to ask all kinds of questions without fearing shaming.
This is the exact opposite of allowing people to ask questions, it's helping to ensure that their pre-existing beliefs never have to be called into question.
I think this bill is not for asking questions
I agree. There are a lot of very smart people on both sides of the issue. It is better to be exposed to both sides.
Also, I think it is good that they are trying to limit nudity in textbooks. Even Steve jobs, who was by no means traditional, prohibited nudity from the App Store because he thought it was bad for young people.
Also, I think it is good that they are trying to limit nudity in textbooks. Even Steve jobs, who was by no means traditional, prohibited nudity from the App Store because he thought it was bad for young people.
No Steve thought nudity was bad business for a high-end brand like Apple.
No I read somewhere reputable, I think in his biography that he though this.
Is Techcrunch reputable enough for you guys?
https://techcrunch.com/2010/04/19/steve-jobs-android-porn/
We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone. Folks who want porn can buy an Android phone.
You know, there’s a porn store for Android. You can download nothing but porn. You can download porn, your kids can download porn. That’s a place we don’t want to go – so we’re not going to go there.
https://techcrunch.com/2010/04/19/steve-jobs-android-porn/
We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone. Folks who want porn can buy an Android phone.
You know, there’s a porn store for Android. You can download nothing but porn. You can download porn, your kids can download porn. That’s a place we don’t want to go – so we’re not going to go there.
Porn isn't the same as nudity. Nick Ut's famous "The Terror of War", showing children fleeing a napalm attack during the Vietnam war, includes a naked girl screaming as the napalm melts layers off her skin.
There is nothing pornographic about that nudity.
There is nothing pornographic about that nudity.
> It is better to be exposed to both sides.
What sides?
> Also, I think it is good that they are trying to limit nudity in textbooks
What's the problem with nudity in biology or anatomy books?
What sides?
> Also, I think it is good that they are trying to limit nudity in textbooks
What's the problem with nudity in biology or anatomy books?
Would you prefer to debate the nudity being bad for young people or whether this law has any legitimate use?
Is nudity bad for grownups? Does the law that prevents public exposure has any legitimate use?
This isn't about grown ups, it's about children in school.
Can you explain why nudity the natural state of the human body only becomes acceptable after people reach a wholly artificial age set by society.
The reality is that the nudity taboo is an artifact of culture that is obsolete.
Primitive religions controlled access to sex by forbidding sex outside of marriage and maintaining a monopoly on access to the marital bed. Sexuality outside of marriage was associated with moral breakdown because it encouraged disobedience to the central source of moral authority.
The interesting thing is that people can encourage their particular nudity taboo while scoffing at others as if a particular part of the human body was implicitly somehow more sinful. The taboo that says its necessary for a woman to hide her face is no different, better, or worse than the taboo that says she has to hide her rear end.
On the other side its perfectly ok for people to maintain the style of dress that makes them comfortable. If you desire to hide everything but your eyeballs that's your right but it becomes morally problematic when people attempt to make the world at large or the internet comport with their sensibilities. Its as sensible as only wearing red and insist that nobody be allowed to wear blue or be seen in the world at large or online attired in blue. Basically the world would be a better place if people didn't impose their hang ups on others.
Your turn.
The reality is that the nudity taboo is an artifact of culture that is obsolete.
Primitive religions controlled access to sex by forbidding sex outside of marriage and maintaining a monopoly on access to the marital bed. Sexuality outside of marriage was associated with moral breakdown because it encouraged disobedience to the central source of moral authority.
The interesting thing is that people can encourage their particular nudity taboo while scoffing at others as if a particular part of the human body was implicitly somehow more sinful. The taboo that says its necessary for a woman to hide her face is no different, better, or worse than the taboo that says she has to hide her rear end.
On the other side its perfectly ok for people to maintain the style of dress that makes them comfortable. If you desire to hide everything but your eyeballs that's your right but it becomes morally problematic when people attempt to make the world at large or the internet comport with their sensibilities. Its as sensible as only wearing red and insist that nobody be allowed to wear blue or be seen in the world at large or online attired in blue. Basically the world would be a better place if people didn't impose their hang ups on others.
Your turn.
Is nudity bad for children?
Perhaps because I'm from a zone where nudity is not a great deal and you can even walk in beach promenades and see nudist beaches and no one cares.
Perhaps because I'm from a zone where nudity is not a great deal and you can even walk in beach promenades and see nudist beaches and no one cares.
So anyone can file a complaint for "in appropriate" material to be removed..
I guess kids in Florida won't be taught anything. The right will ask for evolution not be taught, and the left will ask for the Bible to be removed from the library on grounds that it has pornographic sections in appropriate for kids.
- just kidding the left won't fire back :)
On-topic: it's very sad when people wants to debate basic science. I might be religious, but I see no conflicts between my religion, the theory of evolution or the laws thermodynamics.. faith is not about evidence.
I guess kids in Florida won't be taught anything. The right will ask for evolution not be taught, and the left will ask for the Bible to be removed from the library on grounds that it has pornographic sections in appropriate for kids.
- just kidding the left won't fire back :)
On-topic: it's very sad when people wants to debate basic science. I might be religious, but I see no conflicts between my religion, the theory of evolution or the laws thermodynamics.. faith is not about evidence.
As people on /b/ used to say, "oh, exploitable".
The Church of Satan will have a merry time challenging this stupidity. Here is how I would attack the law, if I were involved with CoS. As per this quote from the law:
"is not suited to student needs and their ability to comprehend the material presented, or is inappropriate for the grade level and age group."
... I would challenge any overly religious materials claiming that it is inappropriate for the grade level, religious materials being better suited to a college level course. I would challenge poor scientific textbooks for being too low level for the grade. I would challenge a textbook for being too outdated with since-overturned theories or facts.
There is no end to the mischief this law could make for schools.
"is not suited to student needs and their ability to comprehend the material presented, or is inappropriate for the grade level and age group."
... I would challenge any overly religious materials claiming that it is inappropriate for the grade level, religious materials being better suited to a college level course. I would challenge poor scientific textbooks for being too low level for the grade. I would challenge a textbook for being too outdated with since-overturned theories or facts.
There is no end to the mischief this law could make for schools.
Finally we can challenge so called "science" teachers about gravity: http://www.theonion.com/article/evangelical-scientists-refut...
/s
/s
This is actually good news if you're a (selfish) parent who does not live in Florida - your kids now have less competition. Ironically, Florida will evolve itself out of the future - and smart parents won't move there.
Let's make Science teaching great again /s
The title! It's not only about science, but anything taught in classrooms. As a parent myself, I don't want to live in a world where public education is compulsory and I, as a parent, have nothing to say about what the public school teaches my kid.
People are angry that some parents will object teaching evolution or global warming, the subjects so dear to many, hence the 'science' in the title. Let's not kid ourselves, for most people these two subjects are merely topics to discuss on the internet or over a drink.
But if I'd had a girl and a teacher, man or a woman, would come to the classroom teaching her how many pills she had to take, or what things to put in her body so her boyfriend doesn't have to use a condom, than I'd object. Of course, I can teach her at home about all things relationships. And of course, it's important for teenagers to be exposed to ideas different from the one taught at home (something that US campuses seem to abhor more and more these days). But relationships are so much more than the simple mechanics of penetration.
It's one thing for parents to have to fight what's taught in school, and entirely different thing when schools present alternative views and also provide best arguments for those views. The simple fact that there's creationism, global warming denials and anti-vaccine people, should not determine us to the give up the fundamental principle which moves knowledge (science included) forward. Dialogue!
People are angry that some parents will object teaching evolution or global warming, the subjects so dear to many, hence the 'science' in the title. Let's not kid ourselves, for most people these two subjects are merely topics to discuss on the internet or over a drink.
But if I'd had a girl and a teacher, man or a woman, would come to the classroom teaching her how many pills she had to take, or what things to put in her body so her boyfriend doesn't have to use a condom, than I'd object. Of course, I can teach her at home about all things relationships. And of course, it's important for teenagers to be exposed to ideas different from the one taught at home (something that US campuses seem to abhor more and more these days). But relationships are so much more than the simple mechanics of penetration.
It's one thing for parents to have to fight what's taught in school, and entirely different thing when schools present alternative views and also provide best arguments for those views. The simple fact that there's creationism, global warming denials and anti-vaccine people, should not determine us to the give up the fundamental principle which moves knowledge (science included) forward. Dialogue!
You've already got a say: it's called the ballot box. What you're asking for is bespoke, micro-managed education. Once you've given up on the idea of consensual reality, you've pretty much abandoned society. Pretending that views are "alternative" when in fact they're just wrong isn't moving knowledge along, it's holding it back.
To give an extreme example: do you think American secular education should be given equal footing in Florida with a madrassa run by a Saudi-educated iman? What if that's what most of the parents in the local area want?
To give an extreme example: do you think American secular education should be given equal footing in Florida with a madrassa run by a Saudi-educated iman? What if that's what most of the parents in the local area want?
The idea that democracy is just showing up to vote every few years should be mocked for the travesty it is, not lauded. Not that I like this particular law (filling a complaint as if school was a fast food joint is not my view of democratic participation either).
True, but democracy isn't micromanaging teachers either.
GP is asking for non-compulsory education, which is for me also a requirement of the country that I will raise my children in. I share none of the same specific reasons for wanting that, but I will handle how my children are educated.
The US _has_ no compulsory education. It expects all children to be educated to a certain (pretty low) standard, and provides a service for achieving that. You don't have to use the service. You can send your kids to a private school, or homeschool them.* What you can't get is bespoke clothing at ready to wear prices.
*(And if you want to homeschool your kids, more power to your elbow. Just don't do it like Felicia Day's parents.)
*(And if you want to homeschool your kids, more power to your elbow. Just don't do it like Felicia Day's parents.)
Requirements on home schooling vary from state to state. I want no requirements and minimal potential for future requirements, it's not something I'll compromise on.
Curious as to where you'd consider moving to. Nearly everywhere has educational standards. It occurs to me that Saudi Arabia might not for foreign nationals, but that would be a heavy dose of irony.
I am in Cambodia. I'm not sure about what the written law is here, but it doesn't matter so much because as with most laws they are not enforced. Although it's an impoverished country with a dictator, it feels less oppressive to live here than in the US. The people are more grounded and not so wrapped up in their outward identity. I don't get nervous being around police. I can work extremely minimally as I only live on about 400$ a month for the past 4 years. The city is zoned leniently and I live near a market, so I have 100s of food options in my immediate neighborhood. I ride a bicycle or walk everywhere. I intentionally moved close to the Olympic Stadium here, which is quite beautiful and has a track, free weights, badminton / basketball / tennis courts, olympic swimming pool and diving board, etc.
Living in one of the poorer countries on earth is obviously not all roses though, even if you're a relatively wealthy expat. It's very hard seeing people I care about in my neighborhood go through so many difficult ordeals. Almost everyone you meet here, unless they're very young, will have a background of extreme hardship.
Phnom Penh is more developed than you might expect though. Every other car is a Lexus and there are skyscrapers going up all over the city. Open space is lacking and the city is mostly ugly now, especially so in comparison to the stunning, pristine beauty of Phnom Penh in the 1950s and 1960s.
Living in one of the poorer countries on earth is obviously not all roses though, even if you're a relatively wealthy expat. It's very hard seeing people I care about in my neighborhood go through so many difficult ordeals. Almost everyone you meet here, unless they're very young, will have a background of extreme hardship.
Phnom Penh is more developed than you might expect though. Every other car is a Lexus and there are skyscrapers going up all over the city. Open space is lacking and the city is mostly ugly now, especially so in comparison to the stunning, pristine beauty of Phnom Penh in the 1950s and 1960s.
Giving all residents a standing in what your kid is taught is not about giving parents a way, it's about giving highly motivated single issue organizations a platform to mess with education.
> But relationships are so much more than the simple mechanics of penetration
Nobody said it wasn't. That doesn't mean schools shouldn't teach biology. Schools must teach how biology works whether it's calculating birth control or blood alcohol levels.
As for the morals of alcohol use or relationships, those are things you are responsible for teaching.. That's not to say that schools can't discuss those subjects, but they are different from the biology.
> But relationships are so much more than the simple mechanics of penetration
Nobody said it wasn't. That doesn't mean schools shouldn't teach biology. Schools must teach how biology works whether it's calculating birth control or blood alcohol levels.
As for the morals of alcohol use or relationships, those are things you are responsible for teaching.. That's not to say that schools can't discuss those subjects, but they are different from the biology.
You have a say, since you live in a democracy and participate in elections. It can not be every parents choice what their child is taught. You want tailor made curriculum fitting the sensibilities of the parents of every child?
This is how the great Islamic empires of the past fell. They were open minded towards science and then there was a backlash from religious conservatives who started blaming all their problems on liberals.
The very same thing happening in the US. Religious conservatives pushing that the source of all American problems is liberalism and liberals.
There is not just an attack on science going on but liberal ideas like a free press. Increasingly conservatives see regular free press as fake news trying to undermine America itself. You see increasing calls for shutting up the media.
I believe America is a victim of its own success. The American dominance in so manu areas has bred complacency. One takes being a scientific powerhouse for granted.