|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 0/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism Bill Passes Oklahoma House | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Can't this disclaimer be considered slander or libel? It makes clear statements of falsehood which reflect on the honesty of the writers of textbooks (or any teachers teaching from it).
I can't believe they actually got the fake term "microevolution" put into a legal document. Don't they have to square what they say about what science actually says, with actual scientists? Perhaps it is time for a new branch of the government... a branch of information and science... which can act as a check on the legislature, executive, and judicial branches whenever they deviate from reality or logic in their decisions. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I was kind of joking around, mainly trying to generate an idea/feeling that maybe there were ways to stop this through processes other than running to an organization that is already up against the wall... kind of go on an offensive like creationists are, rather than defensive action.
That said...
quote: Well yeah, but with a grain of truth. I think bad information and intentionally misleading statements have been used to distort the evidence congress and the executive branch use to shape policy. And unfortunately the legislature and executive branches get to pick and choose their "information officers" in order to get the exact evidence they want. A great example is what just happened this week. Bush removed two highly respected members of his Bioethics panel because they were not telling him that science agreed with his position. And clearly Congress had already done the same thing with evolution when a year or so back they had ID theorists come in and speak as experts on the state of evolutionary theory. I think maybe there should be an independent organization free of partisan policy demands (meaning they can't be dismissed for not toeing party lines), who prepare an objective collection of information on whatever subject congress or the president needs to look at. Then the politicians must deal with the facts and not wander into fantasyland.
quote: I would think that if I published a book and a state then had it stickered saying that what I have in it is not accurate, and they are not right, it does defame my product. And as far as losing finances, wait until this stickering starts acting more as a scarlet letter and those in charge of choosing books are instructed not to waste state money by buying books that will need stickering. Thus creationist friendly science books, published by groups like the Discovery Institute, will become the preferred texts. Those publishing real science texts, will lose orders. Paranoid? Maybe. But anyone telling me OK would be stickering textbooks with lies about evolution 5 years ago and I would have said they were paranoid holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
quote: Yeah, I know. I just thought it would be a good idea. If you want to discuss details of this theoretical organization, open a thread and I'll discuss it. Otherwise we can let it die as a subject.
quote: Would that be unlike the Office of FaithBased programs? Although I should add if it was to be a new BRANCH of government it would take a constitutional amendment, and so not be unconstitutional. I am curious though what you feel would be so problematic in making sure the information used in policy formulation has been accurately fact-checked... like say religious theorists do not get to tell congress what scientists think, say, and have discovered.
quote: The FCC has that kind of power and is not easily ignored. So does the FBI and CIA... not easily ignored.
quote: Any printing cost addition to a publisher is a cost. Any forced disclaimer (especially a false one) reduces its credibility. Any loss of sales is a loss. Maybe it ends up not being much? I have no idea. But if it does, then why not?
quote: And this means what? If you feel it has had no effect in AL, then what are you complaining about if it goes to OK? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I'm uncertain why you have been so emotional with regard to my posts, especially after I said the points in my first post were not that serious (suggestive, rather than literal calls to action).
But since you want to get serious, you appear to be acting contradictory just to be contradictory.
quote: You called it unconstitutional, I'm sorry if that suggests to me that you're saying it is "problematic." What's strange is after saying the above, you turn 180 degrees and say the following:
quote: This sounds problematic to me. Of course I am unsure why what I said came across as suggesting theorists can't say what they want, or require repealing the First Amendment. According to you the concept of "perjury" is against the First Amendment? Or that the library of congress not registering my book The Hobbit, which I showed I wrote because my name is written in the front cover, is against the First Amendment? In reality we already have governmental regulations that restrict "freedom of speech" within venues where correct information is considered vital. There are sanctions for those who deliver false statements, and factcheckers that stop false information from being delivered. Hmmmmm. Actually I should have thought about myself. Part of my job when I worked for the government was just that. In my case I was factchecking procedures and data and getting back on the asses of scientists that were being fuzzy with either. I am uncertain why you feel using what we have in other government institutions to make sure data is accurate, is also done for congressional and executive commitees. People are free to say whatever they want, but the government has a vested interest in removing those who frequently fabricate, or correct the fabrications.
quote: I already explained this, which interestingly enough ties into what you say next.
quote: They can decide to go with books without the need for disclaimers. Like I said, the disclaimer (or need for a disclaimer) becomes a red letter. I am unsure if anyone can sue a legislature and WIN, but they certainly can sue to get a case heard and get attention focused on the fact that science books are being "co-opted" by religious hoo ha, and therefore undercutting legitimate science publishers to put gov't money into religious presses. The far right files lame cases like this to get their message out and it works. My original point was to suggest maybe scientists should be playing more offensively. This could be a method. Call it libel and make it stick in people's heads that perhaps nonscientists are saying false things about scientists.
quote: This stands in contradiction to your earlier criticism of my suggestion of a fact-checking body of government. I completely agree with your statement above and that is what helped me formulate an idea regarding such an institution. And by the way... when I said "if someone told me 5 years ago" I was just using a figure of speech. The point was all of this anti-evo movement, especially its ability to succeed in legislatures, has surprised me such that anything seems possible. Have you read the testimony ID theorists gave before the US Congress? And all the Congressmen did was pitch softballs for them to sock into the stands... there was no factfinding, in the US CONGRESS??? Ugh. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
quote: I did at one time. I don't think I do anymore, but I believe I may have posted it here in a thread long ago. I'll see if I can dig it up online again. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I did a little digging, but I cannot find the direct transcript. I'm sure it must still exist somewhere (available at the very least in hardcopy using a FOIA request).
But here are some links to decriptions about what happened... Page not found - American Atheists http://www.findarticles.com/..._24/63692996/p1/article.jhtml Here's something else I found along the way that was kind of repulsive, definitely check out Kennedy's support of ID movement's garbage (near bottom of second link)... http://www.arn.org/docs/idushouse_700.htm http://arn.org/...news/congressurgesdarwinistsdeny011002.htm holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
It appears I am not making myself clear in this thread at all.
I did not mean emotional in the WAY he responded, I was referring to his apparent need to critique things I have brought up, even if I said they were not important to me. He has seemed so determined to shoot any POSSIBILITY that these ideas might work that he uses rather strained arguments. A simple mmmmmmm, I'm not sure that would really work, would have been sufficient, or even I think this other way might be better. But whatever... For the sake of everyone's sanity I'll not debate your analysis of the argument thus far, and concentrate on what I consider the only real points, which is the conclusion you laid out.
quote: Agreed, and this is not what I was talking about. If the problem is with my inability to communicate properly, fine. I did not mean to suggest religious people cannot talk about anything. However, what I WAS trying to suggest is that whatever ANYONE says for use before Congress could be fact-checked so that false statements are not made. This could be a combination of research/correction, and fining people for making false statements (ala perjury). I gave as an example religious people being allowed to say whatever they want and their words treated as unquestionable facts, because that is what is pushing the very subject we are talking about. There are few "fair and balanced" hearings going on. Congressmen stack the decks and there is no fact-checking. Thus religious types get to speak for themselves and for scientists and that is all. Bush is also doing this with his environmental and bioethics panels. He just fired two more prominent scientists so he did not have to hear what science has to say. A number of scientists recently signed a public paper criticising this very type of thing which is the trend of this administration. I am only trying to suggest ways to start dealing with a reality that is already on the ground.
quote: To form one, or to have one? They have supposedly independent investigating commitees all the time, so I am uncertain why it would not be possible to have one more, and on a more permanent basis. The CIA is itself a form of permanent information gathering, though on specific subjects regarding foreign economics/politics/military. They even publish their own worldbook for public use. It is to be independent and nonpartisan. What would be difficult (beyond normal bureucratic realities) in setting up the same type of organization (information gathering) to focus on science subjects? Obviously people can address personal conclusions or ethical conclusions from subjective criteria applied to objective reality, while formulating policy. This will simply make sure what is objective stays objective. And heck, I'd love to see the government helping store and disseminate scientific information as they do for facts about geography/politics.
quote: And really this is my only interest. Perhap I am mistaken but I do not believe this will be possible, without introducing some form of independent fact checking into the system we have now. Currently the system is for congress and the president to assemble ministers to preach to the choir. Unless this precedent is changed formally, (IMO) the temporary position holds now will become permanent... impotently crying and whining before, during, and after religious types drive the legislative machine which crushes science education into a tool of religion. [This message has been edited by holmes, 03-02-2004] holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024