"Creation science" coming to Indiana public schools

[Zostrianos]

A bill to teach creationism in Indiana public schools has been partly adopted, and may pass:
eIq0KXv_lco

[Le Rouge]

Creation "science" :lol: Science...science....I want to kill myself. I think i'll give up my science studies...Now that creationism is a science. Ouch.

Da fok?

[NineOneFour]

Creationism: More stupidity from uneducated reactionary idiots who watch tractor pulls because NASCAR is too intellectually challenging for them.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Ahh. The fine science of creationism. Where the answer to every question is "god did it". These people aren't going to stop until every school is a church. I absolutely hate religion.

Another thing, which version of "creationism" will they teach? The hindu one? The ancient Greek one? I mean if they are going to teach creationism then they better do it fairly and teach every, single, belief.

[roy]

I don't understand how people can allow creationism to be touted as fact anywhere in the world with access to proper education. I mean, we know it's a crock of shit. Anyone can learn this. There are no words...

[GPDP]

What is even the material basis for Christian zealotry in this day and age?

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's just idealism vs. materialism and bourgeois society is highly idealist, so it's not so surprising. When "Sex-ed" teaches abstinence and schools teach kids about potentially harmful drugs (which they also conflate with relatively harmless substances) with "just say no", why be surprised that biology is taught the same way. Science? Just say no.


What is even the material basis for Christian zealotry in this day and age?That's probably a rhetorical question - but that's never stopped me before. On the one hand, for our rulers it helps bolster and propagate helpful ideology (defense of Israeli policies and US support, anti-Islam bigotry, etc) and for the followers, among other more benign things, dogmatic religion offers to make sense of a crazy world. Again, idealism: the world is crazy and doesn't make sense - it isn't because the world is set-up and organized in an unjust and crazy way, it's because not enough people believe in X, Y, and Z dogma. There really is no "plot" of the capitalists to promote creationism (in fact I think a section of the bourgoise is very nervous about the anti-science views of the right impacting the US's credibility as world-leader and confidence in the US's technological abilities), but in a more general way, the right-wing moral crusades help maintain their social order and are part of attempts to (de)reform public education. After-all if the ruling class sees the point of education to help a select few to gain advance skills and to just train the rest to be janitors (according the Newt) then why do tomorrow's workers need to know about Gibbons and Finches?

[Zealot]

Fucking hell these idiots should not even be given the option to voice their fake ass science let alone have it taught in schools. Creationism provides no answers to scientific problems, in fact it just amplifies them. And to top it all off it really does hinder scientific advancement. When every problem is given a "god did it" answer, there's absolutely no room left for inquiry into real solutions and real answers.

[Zostrianos]

Ahh. The fine science of creationism. Where the answer to every question is "god did it".


A lot of them try and force fit science into it, with "irreducible complexity" and other stuff, but some just go straight for the "God did it". This is part of a creationist presentation shown to kids by Ken Ham (the guy who founded the "Creation museum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum)" in Kentucky) - and yes folks, it's real:thumbdown::

http://timcooley.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/godsaidit.jpg

[Revolution starts with U]

"I have a question for all the darwinists *hisssss* out there: Where you there?! They can't answer that one, because they weren't." If Ken Ham is the same australian guy I'm thinking of, that's an actual quote from him.

[NGNM85]

This is a perfect example of why combatting religious fanaticism is a worthy cause, in it's own right.

[Azraella]

I love it when other religious people disappoint me

[RGacky3]

If it has'nt passed through peer reviewed scientific journals it is not science. Most of creationism (at least in its traditional form) has never passed through peer reviewed scientific journals.

The basics of evolution arn't really contested seriously in any scientific journal, so its not competing scientific theories at all.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well... let's not go overboard and turn peer review into a bible :lol:

Le'ts leave open the possiblity that peer review could, even if it never actually has, could overlook some things

[ckaihatsu]

Well... let's not go overboard and turn peer review into a bible :lol:

Le'ts leave open the possiblity that peer review could, even if it never actually has, could overlook some things


We shouldn't shy away from being critical of the institution of bourgeois science, namely *because* it's the only establishment of science we have -- a "monopoly".

As an analogy most people probably think of Microsoft Windows as being one and the same thing as turning on a computer -- but when it comes to the practice of science there *is no* 'non-Windows' alternative, since the basis of all scientific endeavors is necessarily within the all-encompassing scope of commodity production -- capitalism, and the wealth divide.

This means that trajectories for future developments and advances, for example, will be bound to the parameters of economics and economic valuations, regardless of the "pure" merits of the underlying science itself. So, in short, science *is* politicized, though it may not *seem* so to many -- peer review may be seen as a *professional* process, but it's also a *political* one, as with any other collective human endeavor.

[RGacky3]

Le'ts leave open the possiblity that peer review could, even if it never actually has, could overlook some things

Sure, of coarse its possible, but as far as our knowlege can go is the general consensus of the scientific community, i.e. people who know what the hell they are talking about.

Thats the point of peer review, to make sure they did'nt miss anything, IM not a biologist, so whatever the current biological scientific consensus is, which is defined by the peer reviewed journal, is what I consider to be the scientific consensus.


We shouldn't shy away from being critical of the institution of bourgeois science, namely *because* it's the only establishment of science we have -- a "monopoly".


Sure, but I'm not a scientist, and there are many different peer reviewed journals and they are reviewed by many different scientists.

If you want to juts throw that away your throwing away science. If you want to be critical of it, become a scientist and review the journals.

[ckaihatsu]

We shouldn't shy away from being critical of the institution of bourgeois science, namely *because* it's the only establishment of science we have -- a "monopoly".





Sure, but I'm not a scientist, and there are many different peer reviewed journals and they are reviewed by many different scientists.

If you want to juts throw that away your throwing away science.


No, not at all, and here's a parallel: If we, as revolutionaries, are critical of how workers are currently representing their / our own collective interests in the workplace, does that mean we're throwing away the working class -- ?

Being critical and having discussions about things is *healthy* -- it's called 'democracy'.





If you want to be critical of it, become a scientist and review the journals.


*Or* -- maybe not as a scientist, but as a co-inhabitant of the same world we all live in, I may decide to raise certain concerns with *how* science is being practiced, and *what* its goals are. This, again, would be valid political activity that doesn't necessarily require one to also be a *practitioner* of science.

[The Stalinator]

A lot of them try and force fit science into it, with "irreducible complexity" and other stuff, but some just go straight for the "God did it". This is part of a creationist presentation shown to kids by Ken Ham (the guy who founded the "Creation museum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum)" in Kentucky) - and yes folks, it's real:thumbdown::

http://timcooley.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/godsaidit.jpg
I like to imagine that's an elaborate parody constructed by someone who had no faith left in the world, and decided to piss his life savings away in order to troll people who were really stupid enough to buy into that.

But it's not. So, I'm going to cry about how I wish I didn't live on this planet anymore.

[Ostrinski]

Creation museum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum)" in KentuckyI got kicked out of there. It's not even that great in terms of museums.