Reason # 5,798,348 why I don't live in Texas (or half the US, for that matter)

[xi_o_teaz]

Texas creation vote may go to the wireHi. Welcome to the new Millinium, Texas. I'll be your guide--no, please leave all stupidity that's over a thousand years old behind you--that'd be greeeeeeaaaaaaaaat

Comments

[frater_treinta]

Austin's not as bad as all that. I do suggest either flying in or working to minimize time in Dallas or Houston. If you enter the western part of the state, I cannot guarantee your safety. The town of West, Texas is awesome though.

And the textbook dust-up isn't as bad as it sounds. It's mostly about when is the right time to point out that scientific reasoning has limits. But people are leveraging the extremely democratic* everybody-can-have-a-say policies to blow it totally out of proportion. I'll be thankful when its over.

I have no problem, btw, believing that people rode dinosaurs with saddles. Having seen the local lizards, it's possible they're still doing it in western Texas.

*in the Athenian sense

[xi_o_teaz]

I just have a problem with people teaching religious myths as, ya know, science. As I've stated before, I'm all for teaching alternative creation myths--in a Mythology or Comparative World Religions class. Science class should be reserved for, well, Science. I'm kind of a simpleton that way.

And whilst I know that evolutionary theories have holes in them and we haven't figured out every single piece of the puzzle, the fact that evolution occurs is pretty indisputable. We have the picture, despite a few missing pieces here and there. When Creationists focus on the missing puzzle pieces and scream "See! I told you so!," I find myself hoping that they contract a virus that has evolved to become resistant to any sort of cure.

[frater_treinta]

Most of the language involved, though, doesn't actually mention Intelligent Design. Some of the actual passages deal with concepts like disprovability and the difference between historical and scientific proof.

Which, to be honest, is IMHO a perfect time to bring it up. Enough really good science teachers have covered "Science does not tell us there is no God. Science tells us that species change through time in response to pressures" that it's probably a good time to get it in the curricula.

Then again, anything that gets people to read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is fine by me.

[xi_o_teaz]

Most of the language involved, though, doesn't actually mention Intelligent Design. Some of the actual passages deal with concepts like disprovability and the difference between historical and scientific proof.

I've not read the fine print on the actual legislation, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that much of this is rooted in the Creationism movement (by whatever term it has evolved into ;-)

Which, to be honest, is IMHO a perfect time to bring it up. Enough really good science teachers have covered "Science does not tell us there is no God. Science tells us that species change through time in response to pressures" that it's probably a good time to get it in the curricula.

I agree with those statements.

Then again, anything that gets people to read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is fine by me.

Amen. I hate the blind worship of Science as much as any other religion. Putting things into perspective--particularly questioning Scientism--is always a good thing IMNSHO.

[soror]