• snooggums@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

    • dantheclamman@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

    • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 months ago

      West Virginia learning nothing from Kansas doung the same dumb shit with their board of education two decades ago sounds about right.

      They learned that they can get away with it, and that’s the only lesson these Nat-C’s care about.

        • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • snooggums@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

            • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

              • snooggums@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                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.