The Cobb County Board of Education Vs. All of Science

[Raptor 597]

Looks like we found a new fundamentalist moron.

[Darth Wong]

Mr. Bean, this hierarchical view of theories and laws is incorrect. The following two links explain the difference:

http://cs.bluffton.edu/~berger/NSC/TenMyths.html
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oc ... .Sh.r.html

They're splitting hairs. A law is a generalization about observations. However, it is a THEORY that the law will in fact predict future events.

Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.[/i]

We can have a theory but not a law. However, we cannot have a law without a theory; every law comes with the theory implicitly attached that it will successfully predict future events, and it may even be based upon theories. As I said before, they are splitting hairs by denying the hierarchical nature of these laws. The law of baryon conservation, for example, would not exist if not for countless theories about the nature of subatomic matter (the very concept of a baryon is a theory).

In otherwords, however much evidence a theory accumulates in its favour, it remains a theory; it is never given the title of 'law' because a law is a different thing. For example, 'F = ma' is a law, but it doesn't explain why F = ma ... so it isn't, and never has been, a theory.

Wrong again. A scientific theory does not need to explain why; it need only provide a good curve-fit. The theory of relativity does not explain why space-time is curved; it only posits that it is. I don't know why your sources would claim otherwise, but we have many examples of laws and theories which defy their definitions.

PS. The fact that someone says so does not make it true. Quoting a webpage as proof of an idea (as opposed to mere reference) is bad form.

[Joe]

Haha, this is where I'm from.

Just to let you know, Cobb County is hardly the backwards redneck area you're probably thinking it is, it's actually more of a mixture of rednecks and the upper middle class (lots of rich engineers, we're close to Lockheed-Martin's headquarters) and has some of the finest public schools in the country. There is lots of religious idiocy and hypocrisy, though (I remember the President of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes hosted a keggar after graduation).

I don't agree with the decision, but it's not my decision to make. The Board has the right to decide what it's curriculum will be...

[Kuja]

Even if the board has its collective head so far up its ass that daylight is a myth to it?

[Joe]

Even if the board has its collective head so far up its ass that daylight is a myth to it?

Yup.

[Kuja]

That's.........incredibly spineless. NO OFFENSE! Sorry, I just realized how you'd take that! I hate when people don't stand up and be counted. On campus the other day, a group of students and faculty was preaching about ending the war w/Osama and immediate world peace.

I asked how they planned to do this. They gave me a bunch of flowery crap, but someone else realized the truth and yelled "You've got no idea, do you?!" the whole group broke up.

[Tsyroc]

That's.........incredibly spineless. NO OFFENSE! Sorry, I just realized how you'd take that! I hate when people don't stand up and be counted. On campus the other day, a group of students and faculty was preaching about ending the war w/Osama and immediate world peace.

I asked how they planned to do this. They gave me a bunch of flowery crap, but someone else realized the truth and yelled "You've got no idea, do you?!" the whole group broke up.

The next time they do that suggest that they go to the Masterbate for Peace website that was posted in one of the other threads. At least they'll get something constructive done.

[Kuja]

HAHAHAHAAHAAAA! OMG, that's good! My sides! MY SIDES!

Oh, god, that's rich.......

[Wicked Pilot]

[Kuja]

I've seen that before, it was *glances at watch* HOLY SHIT IS THAT THE TIME?!?!?!?!? I'VE GOTTA GET MY ASS TO ENGLISH!!! LATER!!!!!

[HemlockGrey]

I hereby invoke my Christian Right of Religious Asswhomping.



DEATH! DEATH TO THE ENEMIES OF EVOLUTION! HEEEEEEYAAAAH!

[Darth Wong]

I don't agree with the decision, but it's not my decision to make. The Board has the right to decide what it's curriculum will be...

No, they don't. At least, not in this case. See the First Amendment "establishment clause" in the US Constitution. They are establishing religion by mandating that "theories" with zero scientific merit and an obvious religious basis be taught in science class. They are violating constitutional guarantees against government establishment of religion because they're fucking morons and there are an awful lot of fucking morons in your neck of the woods who voted for them.

You can deny that it's a backwater if you like, but if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Defend it all you like, but the percentage of idiots in your neck of the woods must be high enough to permit this shit, or it wouldn't be happening.

[Singular Quartet]

I disagree with the Creationist on this one AND the ACLU. They do teach more than one big bang theory in highschool also, so should we just limit it to some THEORIES and not others.

Mostly just different forms of the same theory, nothing to different. ITs mostly just the date as far as I know.

Is Evolution a Theory? YES! It is not a scientific law.

Warning: We may have another one.

[Shadow WarChief]

Times like these make me wish that William Tecumseh Sherman had had access to strategical nuclear arms during his March to Sea....

[Joe]

No, they don't. At least, not in this case. See the First Amendment "establishment clause" in the US Constitution. They are establishing religion by mandating that "theories" with zero scientific merit and an obvious religious basis be taught in science class. They are violating constitutional guarantees against government establishment of religion because they're fucking morons and there are an awful lot of fucking morons in your neck of the woods who voted for them.

The establishment clause places no limits on the powers of the states to establish religion. It explicitly limits the power of Congress to do so; it is only through erroneous Constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court over the last century that the clause has been applied to the states. There is nothing in the language of the Constitution to indicate that the establishment clause applies to the states.

You can deny that it's a backwater if you like, but if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Defend it all you like, but the percentage of idiots in your neck of the woods must be high enough to permit this shit, or it wouldn't be happening.

I don't know what you mean by backwater here. The fact that many of us possess foolish religious beliefs does not mean that all of us cannot be productive members of society.

[Darth Wong]

The establishment clause places no limits on the powers of the states to establish religion. It explicitly limits the power of Congress to do so; it is only through erroneous Constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court over the last century that the clause has been applied to the states. There is nothing in the language of the Constitution to indicate that the establishment clause applies to the states.

Ah, so the states have a legal loophole through which they can escape the principles upon which the country was founded. Goody for them.

You can deny that it's a backwater if you like, but if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Defend it all you like, but the percentage of idiots in your neck of the woods must be high enough to permit this shit, or it wouldn't be happening.

I don't know what you mean by backwater here. The fact that many of us possess foolish religious beliefs does not mean that all of us cannot be productive members of society.

Please read my comment again. I never said "all" of you were like that. I only said the percentage must obviously be high enough to control the government, or this shit wouldn't be happening.

[Joe]

The establishment clause places no limits on the powers of the states to establish religion. It explicitly limits the power of Congress to do so; it is only through erroneous Constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court over the last century that the clause has been applied to the states. There is nothing in the language of the Constitution to indicate that the establishment clause applies to the states.

Ah, so the states have a legal loophole through which they can escape the principles upon which the country was founded. Goody for them.

You can deny that it's a backwater if you like, but if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Defend it all you like, but the percentage of idiots in your neck of the woods must be high enough to permit this shit, or it wouldn't be happening.

I don't know what you mean by backwater here. The fact that many of us possess foolish religious beliefs does not mean that all of us cannot be productive members of society.

Please read my comment again. I never said "all" of you were like that. I only said the percentage must obviously be high enough to control the government, or this shit wouldn't be happening.

There is no loophole. The Bill of Rights was never INTENDED to apply to the states, period. The Founders intended the for the states to have the power to make these decisions themselves. State-established religion was not uncommon during the 19th century; other states have clauses within their constitutions similar to the establishment clause in the federal Constitution (Virginia is an example).

Let me again state for the record that I think the Board's decision is ridiculous. I'm just defending its sovereignty.

[Wicked Pilot]

The establishment clause places no limits on the powers of the states to establish religion. It explicitly limits the power of Congress to do so; it is only through erroneous Constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court over the last century that the clause has been applied to the states. There is nothing in the language of the Constitution to indicate that the establishment clause applies to the states.

Perhaps you are unaware of the fourteenth amendment that says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilages or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Perhaps you are unaware of Gibbons vs. Ogden, 1824. "When a federal and state law are in conflict, the federal law is supreme."

I don't know what you mean by backwater here. The fact that many of us possess foolish religious beliefs does not mean that all of us cannot be productive members of society.

The elected by popular vote school board is allowing creationism, yes you people are backwater. I'm from Louisiana, my people are backwater too. It sucks, but I won't deny it. Now if what happens to the Kansas board happens to the Cobb board (ie creationist getting voted out of office) then we will be willing to retract our statements calling Cobb County backwater.

[Raptor 597]

The establishment clause places no limits on the powers of the states to establish religion. It explicitly limits the power of Congress to do so; it is only through erroneous Constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court over the last century that the clause has been applied to the states. There is nothing in the language of the Constitution to indicate that the establishment clause applies to the states.

Perhaps you are unaware of the fourteenth amendment that says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilages or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Perhaps you are unaware of Gibbons vs. Ogden, 1824. "When a federal and state law are in conflict, the federal law is supreme."

I don't know what you mean by backwater here. The fact that many of us possess foolish religious beliefs does not mean that all of us cannot be productive members of society.

The elected by popular vote school board is allowing creationism, yes you people are backwater. I'm from Louisiana, my people are backwater too. It sucks, but I won't deny it. Now if what happens to the Kansas board happens to the Cobb board (ie creationist getting voted out of office) then we will be willing to retract our statements calling Cobb County backwater.

Yeah, like Wicked Pilot from Louisiana. The only thing keeping Louisiana from focusing on cirriculm is poloticial power. Louisiana is known for it's corrupt politicians. It seems every week Edwin Edwards or one o his lackies from getting arrested. There are 3 parties in Louisiana, the Baptist, the Catholic, and New Orleans. The schism between the first two keeps too much on religion from happening because of Church differences.

[Raptor 597]

Times like these make me wish that William Tecumseh Sherman had had access to strategical nuclear arms during his March to Sea....

Well atleast he lowered the RSM. Or Rednecks per square mile.

[Durandal]

We can have a theory but not a law. However, we cannot have a law without a theory; every law comes with the theory implicitly attached that it will successfully predict future events, and it may even be based upon theories. As I said before, they are splitting hairs by denying the hierarchical nature of these laws. The law of baryon conservation, for example, would not exist if not for countless theories about the nature of subatomic matter (the very concept of a baryon is a theory).

That sounds backward, to me. A law is a prediction of behavior with no explanation for its mechanisms. Newton's laws of universal gravitation make predictions about the attractive force between two objects, but they don't give any mechanisms behind this attraction. The general theory of relativity is meant to replace Newton's laws, as it gives a mechanism for the attractive force between two objects (accelerated frames of reference caused by curves in spacetime which are caused by all masses), and produces more accurate predictions -- Newton's laws could not account for the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.

So, I'd say it's the other way around. You can have a law without a theory, but you cannot have a theory without a law.

There is no loophole. The Bill of Rights was never INTENDED to apply to the states, period. The Founders intended the for the states to have the power to make these decisions themselves. State-established religion was not uncommon during the 19th century; other states have clauses within their constitutions similar to the establishment clause in the federal Constitution (Virginia is an example).

Let me again state for the record that I think the Board's decision is ridiculous. I'm just defending its sovereignty.

State sovereignty has turned out to be a horrible implementation of a good idea. It has led to such injustices and preposterous decisions as the one this thread is about, and the Clinton administration's Defense of Marriage Act has given states the power to decide whether or not to recognize homosexual marriages.

The entirety of the Southern United States is enough of an argument for closer federal-level scrutiny of state government legislation. Democracy has been taken to the extent that popular vote will overturn basic civil liberties, and that's what most states don't, or refuse, to understand.

[Steve]

It used to be worse, Damien.

Keep in mind that up until the Civil War (and a bit beyond it) people still believed in having equal loyalty to their specific state as they had to the overall Union.

Consolidation of Federal Power has been aided in the last century, particularly by things such as the 17th Amendment, which made the US Senators subject to public vote instead of appointees elected by the State governments.

And Mike, remember that States have Constitutions too. In fact, I give you Article 1, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution of the State of Georgia:

Paragraph IV. Religious opinions; freedom of religion. No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or property or be prohibited from holding any public office or trust on account of religious opinions; but the right of freedom of religion shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

I wonder if teaching creationism in science class constitutes a practice "inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state".

[Chris Walker]

Looks like we found a new fundamentalist moron.

I'm not sure if you're referring to me with that statement, but given that it's just after my post, I'll assume it is...

OK, lest anyone think that I'm a fundamentalist moron who's arguing that Creationism should be taught in schools, please let me say now that this isn't so (I'm probably best described as a secular humanist). I certainly haven't stated this in my post, so assuming that I'm arguing for the Creationists because I addressed a point that Mr. Bean made would be a strawman fallacy. I was merely addressing that one comment he made, that "theories become laws once they accumulate enough evidence in their favour."

To be fair, I think the fault is mine for blundering into a Creationism debate and bringing in a red herring fallacy about the definitions of theories and laws - or 'splitting hairs' as Mike put it - when I should have been concentrating on the issues at hand. I certainly don't mean to imply that by arguing against Mr. Bean on a tangential topic that I'm on the side of the Creationists (I'm not). For that, my apologies. Which takes me on to:

They're splitting hairs. A law is a generalization about observations. However, it is a THEORY that the law will in fact predict future events.
...
PS. The fact that someone says so does not make it true. Quoting a webpage as proof of an idea (as opposed to mere reference) is bad form.

Sure, I agree that quoting a web page isn't proof of an idea. I was referencing it as a point of interest and clarification, like you might reference a dictionary website when trying to argue semantics with someone. The reason I brought it up in the first place was that I had been reading through some of the links in the 'Useful URLs' sticky thread on this forum. One of these (http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/miscon/miscon4.html#mis) took me to a webpage entitled "RECURRING SCIENCE MISCONCEPTIONS IN K-6 TEXTBOOKS", and then to the explanation that it is a misconception that "theories become laws".

I found it an interesting point, as I had also previously thought that "theories become laws". This made the distinction that theories explain 'how/why', whereas laws explain 'what'. It made sense in the light that equations (as laws) don't in themselves explain why something happens, only what it does. However, in light of the further information you posted, I am reconsidering whether or not that explanation is an over-simplified one. I am certainly not arguing that laws would not exist without theories, etc. Again, my apologies for leaping in with my size 10's and nit-picking an essentially unrelated point.

[Darth Wong]

That sounds backward, to me. A law is a prediction of behavior with no explanation for its mechanisms. Newton's laws of universal gravitation make predictions about the attractive force between two objects, but they don't give any mechanisms behind this attraction. The general theory of relativity is meant to replace Newton's laws, as it gives a mechanism for the attractive force between two objects (accelerated frames of reference caused by curves in spacetime which are caused by all masses), and produces more accurate predictions -- Newton's laws could not account for the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.

Right, but the general theory of relativity simply moves the question to another location. Now we have space-time curvature, and we don't know what mechanism causes it. Look at Newton's laws; they create a mechanism called "gravity" to explain why objects fall to Earth and the planets revolve around the Sun, but they don't explain what causes gravity. Einstein creates space-time curvature to explain why gravity exists, but he doesn't explain what causes space-time curvature. And so on, and so on. Ultimately, if you dig deep enough, any theory or law simply gives us good curve-fits to observation; the ultimate question of "why" is a bit of a buck-passing exercise.

So, I'd say it's the other way around. You can have a law without a theory, but you cannot have a theory without a law.

Every law comes with the theory implicitly attached that it will actually work for predicting future events. A theory, on the other hand, can be based on a set of observations for which no law applies (yet).

State sovereignty has turned out to be a horrible implementation of a good idea. It has led to such injustices and preposterous decisions as the one this thread is about, and the Clinton administration's Defense of Marriage Act has given states the power to decide whether or not to recognize homosexual marriages.

We have a similar clause in Canada. It's called the "notwithstanding" clause (as in "notwithstanding that which is important to maintain local cultural identity"), and it allows provinces to arbitrarily disregard constitutional rights and freedoms if they think their cultural uniqueness is threatened (see Quebec's insane language laws, designed to prevent the adoption of non-French languages).

The entirety of the Southern United States is enough of an argument for closer federal-level scrutiny of state government legislation. Democracy has been taken to the extent that popular vote will overturn basic civil liberties, and that's what most states don't, or refuse, to understand.

The line between "power to the people" and "tyranny of the majority" has been crossed.

[Joe]

Perhaps you are unaware of the fourteenth amendment that says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilages or immunities of citizens of the United States"

You refer to incorporation. Even with the Fourteenth Amendment, there is still no language that suggests that an amendment limiting the power of Congress can be applied to the states. The Bill of Rights is a limit on federal power. The only way it can be applied to the states is through faulty, overly broad interpretation of the Constitution.

Perhaps you are unaware of Gibbons vs. Ogden, 1824. "When a federal and state law are in conflict, the federal law is supreme."

Irrelevant. The federal government is superior within its constitutionally-limited domain. The states are in charge elsewhere. The states have the right to challenge federal laws if they are, in fact, illegal.