But the text books fail to mention valid alternative stories, like that life fell off the back of a lorry or was constructed from convincing paper mache. (Is that spelt right). Surely equal teaching time should be devoted to the idea that giraffes are actually satanists in giraffe costumes?
It always surprises me what comes out of that nation... i am more inclined to believe in evolution (or changes over time) ;) compared with built in 6 days had a cup of tea on the 7th...
If that were true God is a DIY bodger of the highest order...
You have to wonder what he'll make if he goes for his Professorship. Something as big as Jupiter, or was that one of his too? The blotch suggests his contemporary, Archaerodon.
As it's presented, I'm not entirely sure what to make of this article. I can see that the reason why the Cobb education board added the stickers in the first place is almost certainly to do with a desire to emphasise creationism, but taken in isolation (i.e. without the emotional baggage preceding the decision to print them) the wording on the stickers can also be taken as a useful reminder that one should not confuse scientific theories with a belief system...
...Of course, this level of thinking (i.e. questioning the basic principles taught within the school education system) is generally left until university-level, since it is generally accepted (possibly quite rightly) that the average school pupil (i.e. not the exceptional one) will simply be confused by the idea - hence, simplistic models are taught, and the brighter science students are then later taught new models which supercede the basic ones (even if only in terms of their popularity with the scientific mainstream).
As for whether evolution is a "fact" or a "theory"... Well, Darwin's ideas are generally referred to as the "Theory of Evolution"... This page gives a lucid explanation of why some theories are taken as near-fact.
However... If the Cobb education board were trying to open the minds of their students, surely they would have added similar disclaimers to all books on scientific theory...? :-)
Indeed. I was discussing this with a friend in the pub last night, actually - as the amount there is to know about technical fields increases, how long will you have to spend learning before you get past the simplified versions to the actual current understanding?
surely they would have added similar disclaimers to all books on scientific theory...?
Well, absolutely. And why stop there? Bibles, too, could do with them, perhaps.
I'm sure every scientist is keen that students should be taught to 'appraise things critically'. and hence they've been relatively clever in their wording, despite the fact that what they are pushing is undoubtedly creationism (or some variant of which generally involves re-branding it every five years or so). I also agree that people should distinguish between a scientific theory and a belief system, but you have to be careful of how terms are used - apparently the creationist definition of theory is 'just a guess'. Similarly 'faith' in a scientific model is very different from 'faith' in a religious sense.
I'm not sure we've won this, though. My average countryman is, how shall I put this... a fat, ignorant bastard who deeply resents being made to use his pathetic excuse of a brain for anything harder than solving the puzzles on Wheel of Fortune. Even if the school board doesn't appeal, or appeals and loses again, this is just going to enrage more of the lazy trolls who inhabit the red states, causing them to try even harder to turn 21st Century America into 15th Century Spain, and... GRAHARRRHH!!!!!
Sorry. I'm just having one of those moments where I'm amazed that I can become any more disgusted, frustrated and cynical. And I had much much more to say on this, but at some point not even I knew what I was writing anymore, so I doubt you'd have made heads or tails of it.
Must.
Breathe.
Why is not being stupid so incredibly scary to so many people?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 11:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 11:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 11:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 12:16 pm (UTC)And giraffes aresatanists - look at the horns and hooves!
no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 12:18 pm (UTC)I shall be looking suspiciously for the zip next time I see a giraffe.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 11:52 am (UTC)If that were true God is a DIY bodger of the highest order...
no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 11:55 am (UTC)Actually, a work pattern of frantic activity before a deadline suggests he's a student.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 01:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 01:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 01:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-16 05:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 11:58 am (UTC)Hmmm, thats more cockney.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 12:01 pm (UTC)Boy this is hold work... any chance of a cuppa ;)
no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 01:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 12:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 12:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 08:13 pm (UTC)Tolerance or dogma?
Date: 2005-01-14 12:53 pm (UTC)...Of course, this level of thinking (i.e. questioning the basic principles taught within the school education system) is generally left until university-level, since it is generally accepted (possibly quite rightly) that the average school pupil (i.e. not the exceptional one) will simply be confused by the idea - hence, simplistic models are taught, and the brighter science students are then later taught new models which supercede the basic ones (even if only in terms of their popularity with the scientific mainstream).
As for whether evolution is a "fact" or a "theory"... Well, Darwin's ideas are generally referred to as the "Theory of Evolution"... This page gives a lucid explanation of why some theories are taken as near-fact.
However... If the Cobb education board were trying to open the minds of their students, surely they would have added similar disclaimers to all books on scientific theory...? :-)
Re: Tolerance or dogma?
Date: 2005-01-14 12:59 pm (UTC)Indeed. I was discussing this with a friend in the pub last night, actually - as the amount there is to know about technical fields increases, how long will you have to spend learning before you get past the simplified versions to the actual current understanding?
surely they would have added similar disclaimers to all books on scientific theory...?
Well, absolutely. And why stop there? Bibles, too, could do with them, perhaps.
Re: Tolerance or dogma?
Date: 2005-01-17 02:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 01:06 pm (UTC)This is great! I was really afraid that this would become a trend of some sort.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 01:30 pm (UTC)Laugh now, cry later.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 08:52 pm (UTC)They probably will appeal, but tbh, I always thought that if htey want those stickers on the books - fine. Just put them on the Bibles as well.
Twats.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-14 03:28 pm (UTC)Sorry. I'm just having one of those moments where I'm amazed that I can become any more disgusted, frustrated and cynical. And I had much much more to say on this, but at some point not even I knew what I was writing anymore, so I doubt you'd have made heads or tails of it.
Must.
Breathe.
Why is not being stupid so incredibly scary to so many people?