Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 185 posts

Re: Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism

#141

Post by mikeash »

pdonis wrote: post #138
mikeash wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is well supported, but it's not obvious .

Maybe not for some values of "obvious". But I think it's at least as obvious as "the concept of gradual change over time in a population of self-replicating entities subject to selective pressure and heritable variation", which was the standard for "obvious" used in the post I was responding to. In fact, the average lay person will probably understand the concept of "DNA evidence" more easily.

Realizing that self-replicating entities with heritable traits subject to selection and variation will evolve over time just takes some thought. Applying it to the natural world just requires that you notice that living things are subject to selection, have variation, and have heritable traits.

DNA evidence requires some pretty advanced science to obtain. The basics of evolution have been known for millennia (that's how you breed plants/animals for specific traits, after all) but DNA evidence for evolution as the source of present-day biodiversity is quite recent.

Re: Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism

#142

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

jswinghammer wrote: post #86
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It also does not matter what schools anywhere teach if your children do not attend that school. I'm afraid that I have to disagree. If a significant number of my neighbors' children are taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that blacks deserve scorn as penance for Cain's sin, and that the rapture's arrival is to be expected nigh on any moment now; that is a problem for myself, my children, and everyone in my co…

So maybe you want to live in a society where public policy has nothing to do with the age of the universe. Let's do that. That sounds good.

I don't think I understand your reply, but, not basing public policy on ideas about our world which are clearly wrong is important to me.

Re: Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism

#143

Post by sentenza »

cobrausn wrote: post #39
mschuster91 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allowing home schooling is even more sick than that kind of bullshit these Texans are doing. In public schools one at least knows what the teachers are teaching. Home-schooled kids are not protected from anything ranging from creationist crap to domestic violence (you as a teacher can spot if a pupil turns up beaten every other day). Not to mention the fact that home-schooled kids are far, far behind "ordinary school…

So, I don't disagree entirely, but I did go to college with a home schooled guy who was one of the most pleasant, hardworking, and intelligent people I met. I have no idea if religious reasons were part of the reason he was home schooled, he didn't really talk about it, but these blanket labels aren't really helping - home schooling sometimes seems to turn out positive results. If one were to read your post cynically…

I am with mschuster on this and I am also German. I am certain that many home-schooled children in the US recieve an excellent education. Also, I am failry confident that I could teach my children (yes I have them) better than public schools in quite a few subjects.

Nonetheless, I am glad that public education is compulsory here.

Forcing all children to go to the same schools is essential if you want children to have equal opportunities in life.

1. It gives the children coming from disfunctional households a chance to escape and a chance to be helped.

2. It guarantees that the child recieves an education that has a certain basic level in a broad range of subjects, independently of what the parents find relevant or interesting. I bet there are quite a few parents or future parents on this site who think that teaching children about art or literature is a waste of time. There are also people out there who think the same about history or math.

3. Children recieve an education from people that are associated with education. Not only will uncomfortable subjects such as the Holocaust (very central to education in Germany) or sexual education be covered, but they will also be taught by teachers whose relation to the children is free of all the emotional baggage of the relation between children and their parents.

4. Children need to socialize with other children

5. In public school, children "see" the part of society that their parents would like to ignore, be it out of ideological reasons or out of conveniende. If you are a person who leads a good life, free of the problems that plague the society you live in, you are very likely to either shield your children, or unknowingly only expose them to the bubble in which you live. Both things are bad for the children and even worse for society as a whole.

Regarding your last point: There should normally be enough time out of school to improve on the education that the children receive in the fields that you deem more important. It might well be that through public education we lose some outcome in one potential "megabrain" or two, but the overall gain for society that comes from improvement "at the bottom" IMO far outweighs that. Also, the smart kids usually find a way to dig into what interests them, even if you can push them along only a little.

Re: Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism

#144

Post by cpher »

DanielStraight wrote: post #73

I really think both sides get this issue very wrong. Creationism is not valid science, obviously. But that's because it isn't science at all. It is a religious belief, which is by definition non-scientific. Here is where the science side gets things wrong. Creationism is a NON-scientific belief, not an ANTI-scientific belief. It's not anti-intellectual or stupid or backward either. It's a choice to believe in the sup…

I'll add that there are many Christians who are "evolutionists", and understand what science (and religion) can explain about the world. Some of us even attended Christian colleges with professors who taught evolution and actual science, and we had lengthy discussions about this entire topic. AND THIS WAS 20 YEARS AGO.

Re: Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism

#145

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

stonemetal wrote: post #19
cobrausn wrote: post #3

So, as someone who went to a private (Catholic, even) high school in Texas that taught evolution, I'm often pretty frustrated by this. Aside from just waiting for those who set these kinds of policies in place to fade away, is there any specific voting pattern that would stop this? I don't live in areas that vote in people who set these policies, so I'm not sure I can actually even affect this.

If you are still in Texas you have some control. The state board of education determine Curriculum and instructional materials. Board members are elected so your vote and campaign contributions would have an effect.

But the idiots are so many. At least we finally got rid of that idiot Don McLeroy.

Re: Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism

#146

Post by cpher »

thirdtruck wrote: post #140
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not clear on what is left to know that falls outside the reach of science. Ethics. Morality. Art. History. Politics. Philosophy.

All covered by anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, etc. On that same point, I've never encountered a claim for "subjective" that amounted to more than "the decision requires information not consciously available to the specific individuals in the example."

I think you need to read more about Ethics. Morality. Art. History. Politics. Philosophy. I'm being snarky, but I'm sure you're a joy at parties.

Re: Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism

#147

Post by dllthomas »

gress wrote: post #125
DanielStraight wrote: post #73

I really think both sides get this issue very wrong. Creationism is not valid science, obviously. But that's because it isn't science at all. It is a religious belief, which is by definition non-scientific. Here is where the science side gets things wrong. Creationism is a NON-scientific belief, not an ANTI-scientific belief. It's not anti-intellectual or stupid or backward either. It's a choice to believe in the sup…

Ray Kurzweil believes in bodily resurrection, as do the customers of Alcor.

Some contingents, which I expect have some overlap with customers of Alcor, have a stronger expectation of resurrection through scanning and emulation, which isn't exactly "bodily".

Re: Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism

#148

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

FrankenPC wrote: post #118
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an Atheist, I am not generally opposed to a religion class, even a compulsory one. Religion is a reality, and ignoring it is as bad as ignoring any other reality. Teaching creationism is worse than a mere study of religion because it promotes rote memorization of demonstrably incorrect ideas as facts.

I disagree. What it teaches is how to accept dogma without reservation. It's a brainwashing technique on par with anything the CIA could come up with.

>What it teaches is how to accept dogma without reservation.

Yes, I agree. I didn't mean that religion should be taught, I'd rather a course that teaches about religion.

Re: Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism

#149

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

thirdtruck wrote: post #140
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not clear on what is left to know that falls outside the reach of science. Ethics. Morality. Art. History. Politics. Philosophy.

All covered by anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, etc. On that same point, I've never encountered a claim for "subjective" that amounted to more than "the decision requires information not consciously available to the specific individuals in the example."

Well, you found a scientific discipline that mentions "art" and I agree that one may do so for any subject, but I don't agree that the scientific approach is adequate to answer all important or interesting questions.

Re: Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism

#150

Post by vezzy-fnord »

DanielStraight wrote: post #121
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is denying your right to believe in unfalsifiable and unjustified theology. Of course creationism itself isn't anti-scientific, but the majority of people who deeply believe it do have anti-scientific agendas. Is it stupid and backward? I'm not going to conclusively comment on this, but you seem to think that just because it's a choice, it has to be legitimate. No, it can be a wrong choice. Schools shouldn't t…

Obviously it can be wrong ... but it isn't scientifically falsifiable. This is entire crux of what I'm trying to say. You can no more use science to disprove creationism than creationists can to prove it. It isn't a claim which is subject to scientific inquiry. Science has nothing to say on the subject of supernatural events with apparent natural causes. Science is a tool for providing natural, empirical explanations…

You're really stretching the definition of "truth" here, much like a Pyrrhonist would in that nothing can be 100% certain.

Of course it can't. Classic example: I can't prove the entire universe isn't just a brain in a vat.

However, we have to draw some lines and reasonable expectations. If a belief cannot be tested and has no evidence backing it, we discount it until we find supporting evidence for it.

Science can't say something is absolutely and undeniably true, but it can say that something is true beyond a reasonable doubt. You're setting very philosophically pretentious standards about truth here.

Science is certainly not the only way. Yet it has consistently shown itself to be the most reliable and effective way.

In fact, the scientific method is such a fundamental way of reasoning that if a supernatural realm is ever discovered, it will be likely thanks to the scientific method, even though science by default discounts supernatural explanations.

Science has unearthed a lot of observable, tested and verified counterexplanations to supposedly supernatural occurrences, which no one has been able to refute other than setting higher and vaguer standards.

Ultimately, the burden of the proof lies on the person making the large claims. If they cannot back them, by default we exclude their claims until conclusive evidence is found to support otherwise. Just because there are alternate ways of interpreting the world does not mean they are legitimate or that they should be given respect or credence automatically.

Post reply on HN