scientifically illiterate politics

amadain17

I came across this article entitled "Kentucky Lawmakers Shocked To Find Evolution In Biology Tests" in slashdot:

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/08/17/1533234/kentucky-lawmakers-shocked-to-find-evolution-in-biology-tests

You'd think that Ireland would be free from this sort of anti-science stream of unthought but we have a bad habit of following the States. In fact, had pressure not been but to bear on Conor Lenihan when he was in government, we might have our former Minister for Science endorsing anti-science whackos:

http://www.politics.ie/forum/education-science/138007-conor-lenihan-minister-science-launch-anti-evolution-book.html

Also just across the border, our closest neighbours also show that anti-science is on the rise:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2012/0810/1224321879998.html

In the 21st century should we be worried that there are groups with political muscle that are actively trying to return us to the dark ages?

A

Matt_Trakker

Yea, I really don't get this type of stuff, I firmly believe that to hold a ministerial position you should have, at the very least, a Master Thesis achieved in the subject.

And if you're a health minister you can't be fat or smoke. Mary Harney was a pure embarrassment, if a person cannot even take charge of their own health issues then how they hell can we expect them to take charge of the health institutes of the nation.

I'd welcome a system where after a general election results came out then we'd be allowed to vote for the people to take up ministerial position where we'd actually be able to pick the people with the best experience and knowledge for the post they are running for.

Won't happen though.

Ush1

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Yea, I really don't get this type of stuff, I firmly believe that to hold a ministerial position you should have, at the very least, a Master Thesis achieved in the subject.

And if you're a health minister you can't be fat or smoke. Mary Harney was a pure embarrassment, if a person cannot even take charge of their own health issues then how they hell can we expect them to take charge of the health institutes of the nation.

I'd welcome a system where after a general election results came out then we'd be allowed to vote for the people to take up ministerial position where we'd actually be able to pick the people with the best experience and knowledge for the post they are running for.

Won't happen though.

That's what happens when our government is made up of mainly teachers.

amadain17

That's what happens when our government is made up of mainly teachers.

primary school teachers (science is not included in the curriculum)

eth0

Sean Sherlock and the 'series of toobs' lad are far worse

squod

Richard Dah-kins lead the charge, insisting that the Trust should not have given in to pressure from “intellectual baboons”

He said it was regrettable that the Trust had “paid lip-service to the ignorant bigotry” of fundamentalists.

I'm only guessing that the OP is some kind of fan of this ejit. Before he writes another speech he should read a fucking dictionary.

Definition of bigoted
adjective
having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others:

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

squod wrote: »

I'm only guessing that the OP is some kind of fan of this ejit. Before he writes another speech he should read a fucking dictionary.

In this case Dawkins has all of science on his side. He has every right to disregard the nonsense of these modern day puritans.

Gurgle

Ush1 wrote: »

our government is made up of mainly teachers.

I'm sure you won't mind providing a source for this gem?

squod

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

In this case Dawkins has all of science on his side. He has every right to disregard the nonsense of these modern day puritans.

No he doesn't. Also, I take a bleak view of any ''scientician'' who manages to offend peoples beliefs in order to pleasure themselves.

Matt_Trakker

squod wrote: »

No he doesn't.

No, err, he does actually.

squod wrote: »

Also, I take a bleak view of any ''scientician'' who manages to offend peoples beliefs in order to pleasure themselves.

Yea, spreading knowledge is a terrible, terrible thing and those responsible for such heinous acts should be burned at the stake and their eyes gouged out & fed to the pigs. :rolleyes:

Gbear

squod wrote: »

I'm only guessing that the OP is some kind of fan of this ejit. Before he writes another speech he should read a fucking dictionary.


"Definition of bigoted
adjective
having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others"

Whether you're accusing Dawkins of being a bigot or simply excusing the young-earth creationists of it, you appear to have missed an important word in your definition: "obstinate"

ob·sti·nate/ˈäbstənit/
Adjective:
Stubbornly refusing to change one's opinion or action, despite attempts to persuade one to do so.

The demand for equality doesn't extend to things of a factual nature. Creationists don't have their own set of facts - they've got nonsense.

ejmaztec

amadain17 wrote: »

I came across this article entitled "Kentucky Lawmakers Shocked To Find Evolution In Biology Tests" in slashdot:

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/08/17/1533234/kentucky-lawmakers-shocked-to-find-evolution-in-biology-tests

You'd think that Ireland would be free from this sort of anti-science stream of unthought but we have a bad habit of following the States. In fact, had pressure not been but to bear on Conor Lenihan when he was in government, we might have our former Minister for Science endorsing anti-science whackos:

http://www.politics.ie/forum/education-science/138007-conor-lenihan-minister-science-launch-anti-evolution-book.html

Also just across the border, our closest neighbours also show that anti-science is on the rise:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2012/0810/1224321879998.html

In the 21st century should we be worried that there are groups with political muscle that are actively trying to return us to the dark ages?

A

Scientists have given nuclear states the capability of sending us back to the stone age, so the dark ages will be slightly better.:P

lily09

amadain17 wrote: »

primary school teachers (science is not included in the curriculum)

Yes it is:eek:

amadain17

Yes it is

I never knew this. Have primary schools got science labs now? I thought it was just secondary schools. Well you live and learn

lily09

amadain17 wrote: »

I never knew this. Have primary schools got science labs now? I thought it was just secondary schools. Well you live and learn

Science labs, I wish!We have one toilet for 15 people with no hot water and a draught! No science labs but there is an ambitous science currriculum.

amadain17

Science labs, I wish!We have one toilet for 15 people with no hot water and a draught! No science labs but there is an ambitous science currriculum.

Is it individual teacher or state driven?

aaronjumper

It's reading things like this that make me believe
humankind has gotten as advanced as it ever will.
Mentally anyway.

lily09

amadain17 wrote: »

Is it individual teacher or state driven?

http://www.curriculumonline.ie/en/Primary_School_Curriculum/Social_Environmental_and_Scientific_Education_SESE_/Science/

State driven.

amadain17

http://www.curriculumonline.ie/en/Pr...SESE_/Science/

State driven.

Thank you. Maybe we will advance regardless. I fear the introduction of "creation science" in the science curriculum

lily09

amadain17 wrote: »

Thank you. Maybe we will advance regardless. I fear the introduction of "creation science" in the science curriculum

God, doesnt bear thinking about!!
Dont think that will ever happen.

squod

Gbear wrote: »

The demand for equality doesn't extend to things of a factual nature. Creationists don't have their own set of facts - they've got nonsense.

Maybe what you have is a ''prejudiced intolerance''?

amadain17

Maybe what you have is a ''prejudiced intolerance''?

are you actually arguing FOR creationism?

squod

amadain17 wrote: »

are you actually arguing FOR creationism?

I'm arguing for the right of people not to be made a monkey of. Believe this guys crap all you want. You have every right to.

Likewise, people of faith should not be talked down to by some ejit.

Gurgle

squod wrote: »

Likewise, people of faith should not be talked down to by some ejit.

Would you agree to teaching science in science class and nonsense fantasy mythology dogma religion in religion class?

Gbear

squod wrote: »

Maybe what you have is a ''prejudiced intolerance''?

I'm not sure you understand what "tolerance" means.

It doesn't mean you have to be nice. It doesn't mean you have to say "I respect your beliefs".
Saying Creationism is bull**** isn't intolerance. Barring the doors of a church to stop people going to mass is intolerance. Shooting people you don't agree with is intolerance.

As for "prejudiced". Richard Dawkins knows enough about geology to know that the creationist explanation for the Giant's Causeway is bollocks.

squod

Gurgle wrote: »

Would you agree to teaching science in science class and religion in religion class?

I'd agree that the education I got during those years at a Catholic school was more than adequate.

I didn't once have to listen to anyone try make a monkey out of me. If you would like to believe you're a monkey than that is your right. Once we don't step on each others toes in this dance it's all good.

amadain17

I didn't once have to listen to anyone try make a monkey out of me. If you would like to believe you're a monkey than that is your right. Once we don't step on each others toes in this dance it's all good.

you are a primate and share a common ancestor with modern monkeys. Does your status in the world pose a problem to you?

Gurgle

squod wrote: »

I'd agree that the education I got during those years at a Catholic school was more than adequate.

I didn't once have to listen to anyone try make a monkey out of me.

If your understanding of science allows you to reject evolution, I think I'd have to disagree with your understanding of the word 'adequate'.

up for anything

I don't know why people get their knickers in a twist over believing that we are descended/have evolved from apes (not monkeys!). I'd sooner trace my line back to them than to two people who broke God's law and couldn't even keep their hands off a miserable apple. :rolleyes:

squod

amadain17 wrote: »

you are a primate and share a common ancestor with modern monkeys. Does my status in the world pose a problem to you?

Go ahead and believe your a monkey. As I said earlier you've every right to.

Gurgle wrote: »

If your understanding of science allows you to reject evolution, I think I'd have to disagree with your understanding of the word 'adequate'.

Apologies if I have offended your belief system. I'm ''allowed'' to think as I like. Do you seek permission from other monkeys before you make a decision?

Turtwig

squod wrote: »

Go ahead and believe your a monkey.

It seems you're having difficulty with understanding the basics of evolution. You've also every right to believe that grass is red and that 1+1 =3 but don't expect us to think every kid should be taught the same.