Texas EduBoard won't put creationism in textbooks, after all

[Gauthier]

In the actual math itself, that would be the same.

That's where creationism is different. It is intrinsically incorrect like 3 + 3 = 10 inside our modern context.

This^. It would be like people claiming "3 + 3 = 33" according to their religion.

Or "2 + 2 = A = A"

[Len Hyet]

This^. It would be like people claiming "3 + 3 = 33" according to their religion.

Or "2 + 2 = A = A"

Well if A=4 (Assuming A is a variable)
Then 2+2=4
And 4=4
Thus "2+2=A=A" is correct.

[Hurdegaryp]

The evidence disagrees with you.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/ ... tents.html
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolu ... /live.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_01
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... _tiktaalik
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_23
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_16
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidenc ... lution.htm
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/cours ... dence.html
http://www.imls.uzh.ch/research/noll/pu ... 73_785.pdf
http://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/ ... 0703003253
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... .html?_r=1
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/3/221
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1006000526
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5746/287
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molb.ws.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 331a0.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 050603.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 071801.php
http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20060327/evo.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/a ... maritimus/
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/ ... vation.pdf
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... l#atavisms

Have you heard of debating?

Debating on the internet seems to be a synonym for "screaming opinions without bothering to get educated", so I can see why you think that Regnum Dominae is not doing it right.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Religion and mythology tends not to be PG-13 at all. Maybe the moderators should do something about it.

The mods should change history for everything to be PG-13 for NSG. *nods*

*Shrug* Farn was keeping an eye on this thread a while ago, and she's a Sumerian goddess. If she doesn't like it, she could change it by her divine will.

[Tekania]

There's no such thing as a idiot.

I'd like to believe you, but just the other day I was listening to someone complain about how electric outlet wallplates shouldn't have flatheads screws so that they wouldn't potentially electrocute themselves if the screwdriver slips.

[Tekania]

Once again, leftists show that they're completely intolerant of views that contradict theirs, no surprise really

We're talking a science textbook...... the only "views" that should be in there are scientific theories. Creationism is a theology, not a science.... A study of differing creationist views is for a class on theology, not science.

[The Black Forrest]

Wrong. Also, Creationism isn't a theory. Because one is a well documented scientific theory describing something which actually occurs and the other is the ignorant ramblings of bronze age idiots.

There's no such thing as a idiot.

Eh? Are you suggesting most of the planets inhabitants are figments of my imagination?

[Nervium]

There's no such thing as a idiot.

Eh? Are you suggesting most of the planets inhabitants are figments of my imagination?

I wouldn't say most, not even half, slightly ignorant maybe, but downright idiot is a tad to far.

[Tekania]

There are plenty of other idiotic views besides creationism, we can't teach all of them.

Evolution is a fact, creationism is malarkey, we have science on our side. We should teach our kids facts, not fiction.

Theory =/= Fact, if you don't realize that then there's no point in acknowledging you

A "theory" in science is the description of a set of mechanisms and predictions which are supported by evidence and experimentation. A "theory" is not a "Fact" it is supported by facts. Creationism, however, is not a theory; not by the scientific definition of theory. At best it's an unprovable hypothesis. And being unprovable, therefore has little use.

[With Teeth]

Have you heard of debating?

Debating on the internet seems to be a synonym for "screaming opinions without bothering to get educated", so I can see why you think that Regnum Dominae is not doing it right.

Or maybe it's spamming links.

[Dyakovo]

This is an outrage! Why won't they teach both sides of the dang argument?

There is no argument.

[The Black Forrest]

This is an outrage! Why won't they teach both sides of the dang argument?

Argument? Well the only argument is whether or not creationism is a valid subject of science.

[Greed and Death]

That was a close one.

Yes, yes it was. Way too close.

If the Texas Board of Education had any sense, they'd have laughed this out of the building as soon as they were made aware.

You see if you do not make an effort to appear to be taking these people seriously then those people will be elected to the board of education next election.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Theory =/= Fact, if you don't realize that then there's no point in acknowledging you

A "theory" in science is the description of a set of mechanisms and predictions which are supported by evidence and experimentation. A "theory" is not a "Fact" it is supported by facts. Creationism, however, is not a theory; not by the scientific definition of theory. At best it's an unprovable hypothesis. And being unprovable, therefore has little use.

Oh, the literal myth is testable, and in fact has been tested. It's false. The great irony about the persistent clinging to it is that some of the first people to test it -- that is, to test the age of the Earth -- were religious men trying to prove it.

Now, as an allegory, it's no more provable than Hansel and Gretel. But for some reason, certain Christians want a literal interpretation of the story -- well, one version of the two given in Genesis -- but strangely don't also insist on a literal interpretation of, say, the Biblical dietary laws as well. Apparently, they want to have their bacon and eat it too.

[Solaray]

There's no such thing as a idiot.

Eh? Are you suggesting most of the planets inhabitants are figments of my imagination?

That's a rather elitist attitude. If you're serious, that is.

[Tekania]

A "theory" in science is the description of a set of mechanisms and predictions which are supported by evidence and experimentation. A "theory" is not a "Fact" it is supported by facts. Creationism, however, is not a theory; not by the scientific definition of theory. At best it's an unprovable hypothesis. And being unprovable, therefore has little use.

Oh, the literal myth is testable, and in fact has been tested. It's false. The great irony about the persistent clinging to it is that some of the first people to test it -- that is, to test the age of the Earth -- were religious men trying to prove it.

Now, as an allegory, it's no more provable than Hansel and Gretel. But for some reason, certain Christians want a literal interpretation of the story -- well, one version of the two given in Genesis -- but strangely don't also insist on a literal interpretation of, say, the Biblical dietary laws as well. Apparently, they want to have their bacon and eat it too.

I was referring to the theological term "creationism", inclusive of, but not exclusive to the literal. Yes, you're right in that.

I of course do realize that many of those arguing for a "Creationist" inclusion in science text who do not realize that there are actually multiple different Christian Theologies on creation.

[The Black Forrest]

Eh? Are you suggesting most of the planets inhabitants are figments of my imagination?

That's a rather elitist attitude. If you're serious, that is.

Don't you mean intellectual elitist?

[Solaray]

That's a rather elitist attitude. If you're serious, that is.

Don't you mean intellectual elitist?

I suppose. Either way, though many people in the world may be ignorant, or uneducated, doesn't make them idiots.

[Dyakovo]

Don't you mean intellectual elitist?

I suppose. Either way, though many people in the world may be ignorant, or uneducated, doesn't make them idiots.

That's exactly what an idiot would say.
In case it's not clear, this was a joke.

[AiliailiA]

Don't you mean intellectual elitist?

I suppose. Either way, though many people in the world may be ignorant, or uneducated, doesn't make them idiots.

Mis-education is even more of a burden than being uneducated. A scientific concept can usually be simplified and expressed without jargon, for the uneducated. If it couldn't, how would science education begin in school? No-one is born educated.

[Aurora Novus]

Seriously? Holy shit, that's wonderful. Hell yeah Texas. Woot. Nonsense should not be taught in the science classroom, much less in public schools in general.

[0507011209200118090114]

This is fantastic. The education of reality has defeated the education of superstition.

[Conscentia]

Not necessarily in all bases
But then it is simply a matter of conversion. The actual math would be the same.

I think you understood that.

2+2=5 could be used in a context, where 5 means 4 in our system, and 2 means 2 etc. Take Cyrillic letters as an example. Russians write CCCP, in Cyrillic alphabet, while it should be said as SSSR. Those two are different systems.

Um, not sure if this has been off-topic but I sense it has..,

Yep - you've confused the notation with the meaning.

[Conscentia]

The evidence disagrees with you.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/ ... tents.html
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolu ... /live.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_01
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... _tiktaalik
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_23
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_16
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidenc ... lution.htm
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/cours ... dence.html
http://www.imls.uzh.ch/research/noll/pu ... 73_785.pdf
http://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/ ... 0703003253
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... .html?_r=1
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/3/221
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1006000526
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5746/287
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molb.ws.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 331a0.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 050603.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 071801.php
http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20060327/evo.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/a ... maritimus/
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/ ... vation.pdf
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... l#atavisms

Have you heard of debating?

This debate was had in the 1800s, and settled in the 1900s. Evolution is now better understood than gravity. At present, it's less a matter of debate and more a matter of education. Presenting access to information that will educate is therefore entirely appropriate.

[Dyakovo]

Have you heard of debating?

This debate was had in the 1800s & 1900s. Evolution is now better understood than gravity.

Aye, there really is nothing to debate. The anti-evolution crowd is simply ignorant and wrong.