Here we go again, this time it's: Texas Board of Education

[Zeradul]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/26/texas-from-saved-to-doomed-in-just-6-hours/

[mystic]

Texas students will get their chance to learn that the Universe is 6000 years old, and when they try to get a job or do anything later in life, they will be routinely laughed at.

You mean we will have even more to laugh at Texans about? 

[Stinger]

Just further proof that separation between church and state is a joke.

One thing I've been wondering about; If the text books in these areas of majority ignorance teach "intelligent design" and that the earth could well be 6000 years old, are questions on the nature of god's hand in creation on tests? Is there a multiple choice question somewhere that reads:

How old is the earth?

A: 20 years old.
B: 6000 years old.
C: I'm a Godless heathen.
D: All of the above.

When I was 5 years old my grandparents took me to the Smithsonian institute to see the space shuttle my grandpa helped build. When I was young I was real big on any book about dinosaurs, so I really wanted to go see the bones. After about 15 minutes of begging, I finally convinced my grandma to escort me down the hall of fossils. That's when I first saw the T-Rex...

The T-Rex was a big deal for me! I saw pictures in books, I couldn't help my excitement, I sprinted over to the exhibit. "Grandma! Grandma! Look! It's the T-Rex! It's really here!"

"No...", said Grandma with a look of serious disgust in her eyes, "Those 'bones' were planted by Pagan scientists at the Devil's behest in an attempt to lure us true believers from the truth of Creationism, and condemn us all to hell. The T-Rex never existed."

Stunned, I stood there for a full minute contemplating what had just been told to me. My adolescent brain chewing with all it's might, trying to make what grandma said stick in with everything else I knew about reality. After plenty of complete silence, finally I point at the fossilized remains before us and said "But Grandma... It's right there!"

Creationism: So intensely retarded, a 5 year old can disprove it by pointing.

Way to go, Texas!

[Zeradul]

Let's be fair here, "Creationists" who think the Earth is 6,000 years old are WAAAY the minority, at least in the north.  Despite going to church every week until I was 18, as well as all the Catechism, and Confirmation classes that went with it, I still have never met anyone who openly says that they believe the earth is 6,000 years old not even my priests, or Catechism teachers.  Some may believe it, but I've never met anyone confident enough in their belief to say it out loud, and I'm from a tiny rural town of 1,000 people.

What amazes me is that this SHIT IS being VOTED IN??? WTF?  That means there has to be at least 11 people in Texas (the board of education members who already voted for it) that believe this?  WHAT???  Is this some sort of bizarro world where the Onion writes stories and then they become fact?

How is this still happening?  And in a BIG state like TX?

[Stinger]

Eh... See, that's what worries me, Zera. What I'd consider "hardcore" believers aren't in as short of a supply as one would like to believe. Roughly 70% of people polled in America believe in angels. That's no-shit invisible (apparently) celestial beings flapping around... With the exception of Turkey, there isn't a more christian nation in the world. It's on our money, for fucks sake...

While the mass majority of christians AREN'T evil or stupid, you can't be a "good christian" without at least paying lip-service to some evil and/or stupid philosophies. It's like playing the party lines; It doesn't matter how many christians really believe that the earth is 6000 years old, it's that most people who call themselves christian believe it to be their duty to defend the "right" to shove their chartering ideals into publicly funded institutions. If they don't defend the views of the more extreme of their flock, they may not get the support from the extremists when it comes to a matter they really care about. All for one, and one for all, as long as you're not a fucking heretic.

Hence, a room full of less-than-retarded people can somehow come to an 11-3 vote in favor of something fundamentally retarded, all in the name of towing the party line. Spent half my life living on holy ground... Doesn't matter what religion it is; Church politics are a bitch, and they're not going anywhere.

[Zeradul]

Roughly 70% of people polled in America believe in angels.

Yea, and that same 70% believes in Heaven.  My point being that it's one thing to believe that there are angels in heaven, it's a WHOLE OTHER THING to think that they are flying around you at all times, protecting you from unseen evil.

I think that in this case, the 11 vs 3 was just 11 people who didn't think they'd make any waves by voting for this attractive woman, who is carefully veiling her creationism with words like "we just want students to hear ALL viewpoints" as if certain viewpoints were being censored somehow.  Of course what she means is that she wants religion to dilute science class, but that is unconstitutional, so she's being crafty.

I think that the backlash against this preliminary vote will get hopefully at least 5 of those 11 to reconsider their vote.  It still might not pass, and we'll have Phil Plait to thank.

[Stinger]

Is it really any less naive to believe that the angels exist, but they confine themselves to heaven? Is it any less naive to believe in heaven as a literal place you go when you die, filled with flying celestial beings, and where every "sin" is abolished?

I'm not mass-condemning everyone "christian" as being un-intelligent. Quite the opposite, seeing as how most people in this country are christian, it's less than surprising that most of my friends consider themselves christian. And with these people, I intentionally don't have these conversations unless THEY bring it up. But... I genuinely believe that to be a christian, AND a free thinker, you have to intentionally sacrifice many higher thoughts in the name of obeying your god.

It really wouldn't surprise me in the least if this passed it's second vote.

Some numbers that I'll admit to lifting from an opinion column without checking (an anti-atheist column, so I think I get some leeway in using it pro-atheism), but they sound about right.

A typical result came from the Zogby Poll of January 21, 2008, indicating that 50% of voters rule out supporting ?a presidential candidate who doesn?t believe in God?; only 20% said they could definitely vote for such a contender. Meanwhile, an overwhelming majority of 78% (86% of women and 67% of men) say they take a ?positive view? of candidates citing Scripture when discussing political problems.

Eh... You'll have a hard time finding an atheist less-passionate about this topic than I am, but I don't claim openly that I'd not vote for a christian. Quite the opposite, both times in my life when I did vote, it was for a christian. See, it's not that I was sitting there saying "I'll vote for this guy because he is a christian," it's that there wasn't an atheist choice and I don't share to the same ignorant hateful attitude needed by a person to say without any shame that they'd refuse to vote for someone based on religious preference.

See, what bothers me about this country is that the topic we're discussing and the side we're on makes us outcasts in a very real and actionable sense, whereas being pro-christianity (which in a very real sense is anti-free-thought, and anyone who disagrees needs to do more homework) makes you accepted as a serious candidate for any office, even if you're a fucking idiot. And I don't think this is off-topic, school boards being a public office.

It would be damaging for the careers of every and any public official to speak openly against someone who leads the charge for pushing the idea of the judeo-chrisitan god on our majority-duped, I mean christian, children. Which is why I still hold that it doesn't matter what those 14 men and women on the school board really believe; If at least 11 of them consider themselves to be christian (and by the numbers, that sounds about right), then their real opinions don't matter.

What is being a christian if not putting your own thoughts aside in chosen instances in favor of taking up the "opinion" of the divine?

What really kills me is that to the true believers, my views are hateful and without merit before they even bother to internalize the arguments. Discrediting other peoples ideas by any means necessary is yet another reason why I politely decline some of my very best friend's regular impassioned pleas of joining them every sunday morning to "give god a REAL try."

Another story of relevance; When I was 6 years old my grandma (same as above mentioned) told my mom and dad that she was taking me out for ice cream, and then took me to her freewill baptist church and sat me in a chair, where I was surrounded by 20 other old people with insanely pious beliefs as they all prayed loudly with the large man in black who spent the next 2 hours shouting at the top of his lungs for the demons that possessed me to leave so that I could be saved.

To the mass majority of America, the man in black who yelled of hellfire and brimstone at a terrified child for 2 hours is automatically better suited for the office of President than I am, based solely on the fact that the exorcism didn't "take" and that I'm still a heathen. There is no argument on earth that will lead me to believe that's anything other than seriously fucking retarded, and anyone who accuses me of not thinking through the issue with due diligence and sound judgment is quite likely incapable of seeing those exact same faults in themselves.

[Mnementh]

Well, as much as it almost hurts to say this, the woman has a point.  It is not the school's job to tell you what is right and what is wrong.  Our job, as educators, is to present as much information as possible and then allow the consumer of said information to make an educated choice as to what they want to believe.  I have no problem with including lessons in science classes that instruct the earth is 6,000 years old.  This is mainly because where better to disprove such a theory than in a class being taught right next to another theory that has tons and tons of evidence to prove it?  I would rather such things BE taught in science classes, because next to real science it will be easier to show how preposterous it is.

[Stinger]

I like the thought process you've got there, Mnem. I agree that science class would be a great place to disprove such "theories"... But... What I question is how many teachers out there share your healthy desire to guide children away from such fairy tales.

In short, in the hands of the right teachers, I agree with you, it's a fine idea to contrast and compare for validity. But the people arguing FOR this are quite often science teachers who have no intention of disproving anything... Just because this could be a good thing in the right hands doesn't mean it'll be in the right hands.

It's just wrong that the earth is 6000 years old, completely and totally false, disproven many many many decades ago, and it's just wrong to teach impressionable minds that it's even remotely possible. And that's what this law is fighting for. So it's fucked.

[edit]Were you saying that you don't think the teachers should say ANYTHING as to the validity of the "6000 years old" alternative, and let the children figure it out for themselves? Because that I disagree with whole-heartedly. Teachers are the people we tell our children to listen to. The words that leave their mouth hold more validity in the minds of children than your average asshole spouting scripture. To let the teachers, the people we tell our children to shut up and listen to, tell the children lies as plausible truths is just amoral. It does your profession a disservice, by ripping away credibility.[/edit]

[Mnementh]

You have to remember that the teachers teaching science are, at least in my schooling experience and in my school, scientists...whereas many school board members aren't. 

Even if teachers were to say nothing as to the validity of the theory that the earth is only 6,000 years old, the fact that it is being taught beside theories with massive amounts of evidence behind them would naturally show how silly it actually is.  So it wouldn't take teachers to outright tell their students that the theory is bunk, it would happen all on its own.  You have to remember, Stinger, it is not our job to impart upon our students our own opinions...we have to remain impartial and let the natural process of learning occur, at least as much as is possible. 

I honestly believe that requiring the theory to be taught in science classes is the best way to show how ridiculous it is.

[Stinger]

Eh, I can see your logic... But I really have to disagree with the implication that telling students that the idea the earth is 6000 years old is stupid is teaching a biased opinion.

Science is cool, as are scientists, but I don't see how holding creationism as being false is just an "opinion" for any scientist. Something stops being just opinion when you can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, and it is no opinion that the earth is way, WAY older than 6000 years.

[Mnementh]

Or it is God's will that we think the Earth of over 6,000 years old.     

[Zeradul]

I have no problem with including lessons in science classes that instruct the earth is 6,000 years old.  This is mainly because where better to disprove such a theory than in a class being taught right next to another theory that has tons and tons of evidence to prove it?

I'm fine with it being taught in RELIGION class, about the history of all religions.  I think it's valuable to teach creation, but it's also valuable to spend equal time on how XENU brought all the intergalactic alien criminals and dumped them in the Hawaiian volcanoes, and how Zeus throws lightening sometimes when it rains, and how some religions believe in reincarnation, and others believe that dead guys can come back to life and walk around scaring people as zombies.

But to put it in science class is an outrage.  There is exactly zero supporting scientific evidence for this claim.  Things without evidence NEVER belong in science class.  Putting religion in science class not only distorts the true meaning of science to a young person, but also gives SOME the view that it IS a valid scientific view of the world.

But I am in support of all students being required to take a "religion" class, taught as part of the history curriculum, as long as ALL religions are presented, both modern, and extinct.  The study of religion is a really fascinating thing, and when you look at all the religions, past and present, you quickly see that the most successful religions over time are the ones most successful at marketing themselves.

Anything that isn't science, shouldn't be in science class, period.  We could put unicorns in science class, just to disprove them, but we don't.  Why?  Because there is not a shred of evidence that unicorns exist or have ever existed, AND we can trace back that myth to it's source as a man-made fabrication.  So not only does every piece of evidence indicate that unicorns do not exist, but we have evidence that humans "made it up".

[Zeradul]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/28/texas-wrapup-yup-doomed/