Texas Bill Would Protect College Professors Who Question Evolution

[bobhikes]

Creationists will likely always be around, & will occasionally wrest some legislative victory for their particular rethinking of the scientific method.
Even if the Supreme Court were packed with fundies & they got their way, they'll still lose because their "theory" just doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.
- Cannot be falsified.
- Cannot be tested.
- Makes no testable predictions.
- Not useful, ie, no practical applications.
- It flies in the face of overwhelming verification of the TOE, which is the simpler & more applicable explanation.

Claiming that one is winning isn't always so. Please, Bob, don't channel Charlie.....

I can't see the video at work have to try at home.

This law does not make it any easier to take down the laws of science. It will however lead to protecting people that wish to challenge a theory that has witch hunters from both sides prosecuting without evidence. Maybe you don't see it, maybe you do but are ignoring it but its true.

Besides we're playing a game of words here not lives. When I play games which have no consequences I take my wins however I get them.

Maybe I not ready for revoltafariansm.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Actually I for one am very excited about this. I can’t wait to see what great new scientific advancements come out of Texas as a result of this bill. If Texas universities really do start funding research into I.D. new discoveries are bound to be made. Right? What kind of new discoveries do you imagine will come out of Texas now?

I love the idea of Texas money going towards this kind of research.

I just don’t want any of my money going to this kind of research.

I really don't think that it will effect the university all that much.

 

[fantome profane]

I really don't think that it will effect the university all that much.

How can you say that!??? This will be the only university doing cutting edge research into this exciting new field! I just can’t wait to see what they come up with.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How can you say that!??? This will be the only university doing cutting edge research into this exciting new field! I just can’t wait to see what they come up with.

haha seriously, I don't think that there are that many people who make it through a PhD program and then the requisite experience to be on faculty at a major university and seek to promote bad biblical interpretation instead of participate in their field.

Most PhDs actually care about their subject and don't show utter contempt for it once they are ready to join or remain in academia. And somehow, I don't think that the university is going to give a rat's booty about this law. They can easily refuse to hire or fire someone like this based on other things.

 

[doppelganger]

How can you say that!??? This will be the only university doing cutting edge research into this exciting new field! I just can’t wait to see what they come up with.

Finally . . . we'll have some hard science to back the theory -- "God did it, and "He" did it exclusively according to one particular interpretation of words contained in one particular ancient text."

 

[doppelganger]

haha seriously, I don't think that there are that many people who make it through a PhD program and then the requisite experience to be on faculty at a major university and seek to promote bad biblical interpretation instead of participate in their field.

Most PhDs actually care about their subject and don't show utter contempt for it once they are ready to join or remain in academia. And somehow, I don't think that the university is going to give a rat's booty about this law. They can easily refuse to hire or fire someone like this based on other things.

"Hi, University of Texas, I'm Dr. Id Yot. I hold a Ph.D. in Biology from Liberty University and would like to teach creationism in your science department. That's not science, you say? The legislature says otherwise. I'd like a corner office, please . . . oh, and a share of the University's grant money equal to what the Satan-inspired 'Darwinians' get."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Finally . . . we'll have some hard science to back the theory -- "God did it, and "He" did it exclusively according to one particular interpretation of words contained in one particular ancient text."

They're going to have to start training scientists in the art of biblical interpretation. Heck, we can require them to earn a PhD in biblical interpretation AND science. That way they can be the best scientists that they can be.

But a single lecture on basic principles of interpretation and some historical notes can handily defeat creationism. The biblical interpretation aspect of it is worse than the science.

 

[doppelganger]

They're going to have to start training scientists in the art of biblical interpretation.

Really?! What does Biblical interpretation (at least any thought out method for it) have to do with Creationism?

 

[Alceste]

haha seriously, I don't think that there are that many people who make it through a PhD program and then the requisite experience to be on faculty at a major university and seek to promote bad biblical interpretation instead of participate in their field.

Most PhDs actually care about their subject and don't show utter contempt for it once they are ready to join or remain in academia. And somehow, I don't think that the university is going to give a rat's booty about this law. They can easily refuse to hire or fire someone like this based on other things.

The legislation would make it potentially illegal to hire an academic like you have described if some dipstick like Ken Ham or Michael Behe wanted the job.

But it doesn't matter. It will end up in court, where it will likely be speedily quashed because the Supreme Court has already rejected the argument that creationism is scientific.

 

[Alceste]

Really?! What does Biblical interpretation (at least any thought out method for it) have to do with Creationism?

Is there any reason outside the claims of the bible to think that God made anything?

 

[Alceste]

I can't see the video at work have to try at home.

This law does not make it any easier to take down the laws of science. It will however lead to protecting people that wish to challenge a theory that has witch hunters from both sides prosecuting without evidence. Maybe you don't see it, maybe you do but are ignoring it but its true.

Besides we're playing a game of words here not lives. When I play games which have no consequences I take my wins however I get them.

Maybe I not ready for revoltafariansm.

People who, like yourself, have difficulty distinguishing between a failed hypothesis and an evidenced scientific theory have no business teaching or attempting to conduct scientific research.

 

[Magic Man]

People who, like yourself, have difficulty distinguishing between a failed hypothesis and an evidenced scientific theory have no business teaching or attempting to conduct scientific research.

But he has taken a lot of science classes like Physics and stuff. He told me so. So how can you question his understanding of science?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Really?! What does Biblical interpretation (at least any thought out method for it) have to do with Creationism?

Absolutely nothing.

Such training would prevent creationist students from hanging on to old dogmas.

I myself know an immanent scientist who is a creationist. He's not involved in a field that would require him to make this view public, but he has contributed significantly to his field - once discovering a cure for an epidemic. I also know plenty of nurses and MDs who believe in it, but their practices don't depend on it.

 

[Revoltingest]

This law does not make it any easier to take down the laws of science. It will however lead to protecting people that wish to challenge a theory that has witch hunters from both sides prosecuting without evidence. Maybe you don't see it, maybe you do but are ignoring it but its true.
Besides we're playing a game of words here not lives. When I play games which have no consequences I take my wins however I get them.

Evolution should be challenged.
But it should be done in accordance with the scientific method, rather than with religious arguments.

Maybe I not ready for revoltafariansm.

Few are.....very few.

 

[outhouse]

it wont pass

pseudoscience is still pseudoscience

all I can say is I hope reality and reason win.

 

[Duck]

it wont pass

pseudoscience is still pseudoscience

all I can say is I hope reality and reason win.

In Texas? Being originally from there, Texans tend to be fond of overly large belt buckles (a stereotype rooted in truth). I am convinced it is because the state is an overly large buckle on the bible belt.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Evolution should be challenged.
But it should be done in accordance with the scientific method, rather than with religious arguments.

I will be quoting you sir..... I like this....:yes:

 

[Alceste]

But he has taken a lot of science classes like Physics and stuff. He told me so. So how can you question his understanding of science?

He should take more. Maybe even try to pass one.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think we should we should allow Texas to secede from the rest of the country to create it's own cute little third world theocracy that they so desperately desire, then strongly encourage all of the fundies from the other states to migrate there.

That, or just give Texas back to Mexico.

 

[Magic Man]

He should take more. Maybe even try to pass one.

He should also stop giving frubals to make private comments, and instead just reply to my comment in the actual thread (or at the very least in a PM).