This site includes customizable daily news summaries, blogs, and other information relevant to skeptics, paranormalists, trivia buffs, philosophers, and the easily amused: http://www.skepticnews.com Not confident that I'm a "real" skeptic myself, but hearing about my home state's disturbing new creationism bill from this site instead of, well, anywhere else told me that I really ought to bookmark it (and now I have). Cheers,
Also, you may want to check out the web site of Skeptic Magazine http://www.skeptic.com Happy reading, Jack
Hey Tom Hey man, I just wanted to ask to make sure. The "creationism" bill doesn't appear to be about creationism specifically, but more about explicating evolution as a "theory" (as opposed to being commonly taught as "fact"). Does not teaching evolution as "fact" amount to "creationism"? I'm not sure this is your perspective, but I was just wondering. Chris
If the warning label only stated "Evolution is just a theory," I would have less of a problem with it. I would still question the State of Mississippi's decision to unnecessarily take an official position on a scientific issue--should I expect a warning label on math textbooks stating that "Euclidean geometry is just a theory"?--but I could at least say that it doesn't actively mislead students. The warning label--which would be affixed to (emphasis mine) "any textbook that includes the teaching of evolution in its contents"--would state that "[t]here are many unanswered questions about the origins of life that are not included in your textbook, including..." Now, I have to ask: How the heck does the author of the bill presume to know that the textbook in question doesn't address these issues? All the bill asks is that the book include "the teaching of evolution in its contents." It could specifically address every issue brought up on the warning label and still receive a warning label stating that it doesn't, which would mean that the State of Mississippi would be actively lying about the contents of a textbook. That's not good. But the most serious issue is that the State of Mississippi presumes to take an official position on the explanatory value of evolutionary theory. We would have laypersons--who happen to hold political power--dictating what students are permitted to believe about biology. By criticizing evolutionary theory and not criticizing creationism, it establishes the State of Mississippi as a de facto creationist. There are many qualified biologists who happen to be creationists, but the State of Mississippi is not a biologist, and its opinions on the matter--unless they are enforced by law (and this warning label would be a step in that direction)--are irrelevant. Not that the bill is a done deal by any means--it's been shelved for debate in the education committee--but the political atmosphere down here is such that I wouldn't be surprised if it does pass, should it come to a vote. We already have "In God We Trust" hanging on classroom walls now (another idea that wouldn't have bothered me if it weren't state-mandated). There is, incidentally, a nearly identical bill before the legislature in Oklahoma. Somebody has apparently put a lot of planning into this. I'm not against teaching creationism--or its more secular-sounding godson, Intelligent Design--but I don't think it should be a political decision. I think that undercuts its credibility. As Thomas Jefferson once said, only error needs defense. As I told a homeschooling parent the other day: Wouldn't it be funny if people had to send their kids to parochial schools because the public schools down here have gotten too conservative? Cheers,
This just in: The proposed Mississippi anti-evolution bill is now off the table (at least until the next legislative session). http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2003/MS/164_proposed_textbook_disclaimer_b_1_31_2003.asp Cheers,
Wow Tom I had no idea. Thanks for your comments. I can see why state-mandated religious propaganda would be irritating. Keep us posted, Chris
Please refer to the best dictionary you have at hand and note the difference between skepticism and cynicism. Jack
