206
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
206 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19062 readers
3815 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
West Virginia learning nothing from Kansas doung the same dumb shit with their board of education two decades ago sounds about right.
Also, it seems that legislators don't know the difference between a scientific theory which is supported by evidence and a layman's theory which is a hypothesis.
Religious extremists will always work to propagate their beliefs by coopting state resources: in this case, the education system. They know their ideas can't stand on their own merits, so they instead work to weasel their way in through forced prayer in school, teaching of religious ideas in science class, and of course, censorship of school libraries. It is theft of our taxpayer dollars to support their proselytization, which is ironic because some of these creeps are the same people raving about welfare queens and food stamps.
They learned that they can get away with it, and that's the only lesson these Nat-C's care about.
Intelligent design isn’t even a hypothesis. In order to be one, it would have to be falsifiable.
Anything can be a hypothesis.
In scientific use, a hypothesis must be testable. The word “hypothesis” can be used more loosely in a non-scientific context, but we are talking about a science curriculum here.
We can test for intelligent design. All we need to do is find some evidence.
Since there is no supporting evidence, it fails the test. Just like the hypothesis that the planets affect our destiny or that essential oils can heal people.
Supporting evidence of what though? What testable thing would we even be looking for? Intelligent Design doesn’t predict what the creator is, how to detect it, or what process it uses to create. Intelligent Design has a concept of “irreducible complexity”, but you can’t test that.
Looking for evidence of intentional design.
Intentional design would not include things like terrible spine structure for humans, which is clearly shown to be an evolutionary change that wasn't bad enough to not work out but is also clearly a recent change. Then there are the different animals that went extinct because of evolutionary pressure. Irreducible complexity is shown to be bullshit because we always find the 'missing steps' or gaps in evolution when we find new fossils.
Heck, most of the examples the people who promote the idea are things that humans intentionally changed over time like bananas and corn, which undermines their arguments of some kind of higher power doing the same.