Mississippi trying to catch up to the stupidity of Alabama

[Lunar]

social darwinism isn't taught in science class

[Holmes]

Honestly, this isn't really going to matter.  You don't really talk about evolution anyway until AP Biology anyway, and they only offer that at the few good high schools, and at those high schools, the students in those classes will just mock the stickers.

Your state needs help with education, man. Attitude-wise, too.

[Matt Damon™]

I'm for this.  What is wrong with presenting alternatives to "You are a monkey, your life has no value" and then expecting kids to respect one another.

Most people _do_ have no value and aren't relevant in the grand scheme of things. It's just that the modern world's more participatory media environment allows people to think otherwise(blogging, youtube, posting on forums). The harsh reality is that now, as ever 'Great Men' for good or for ill are still very rare. There's a reason why their names are in the history books and not say your name. Now, as ever the vast majority of people are for all intents and purposes soulless cattle. I do not claim to be one of these great men, I simply recognize the futility inherent within the system and I attempt to ignore it/work my way around it.

[Eraserhead]

I don't recall anything in the Theory of Evolution that says humans are monkeys and have no value.

Which would give you greater self-esteem and respect for one another:

1. You are, at best, a cosmic accident and evolved from something that you can go see at the zoo.  Survival of the fittest is in effect, kill or be killed out there.

2. You are a unique creation of an almighty God who loves you and every other person around you.  Love thy neighbor as God as made all people equal.

By all means, let's turn our science classes into emotional love fests that have nothing to do with the actual scientific facts at hand.

[Alcon]

I have always opposed social darwinism and believe I have stated so in the past.  I fervently believe in Christian social theory as the basic construct of society - Blessed are the meek, Love thy neighbor as thy self, etc.  - even if one does not believe in the religion itself.  I simply do not understand how one can separate the principle of "survival of the fittest" from Evolution, and thus cannot justify its usefulness to humanity.  Knowledge cannot save us, Love can.

If I offended anyone's beliefs I do apologize - this is simply an issue I am quite passionate about.

Social Darwinism has as much to do with Darwinism as Christian Identity has to do with Christian -- that is, they both have the same word in their name.

The evolutionary concept of the "survival of the fittest" is not a moral judgment.  Lions beat gazelle.  Animals that can reach the fruit faster get to eat more and reproduce more.  Dogs with thicker coats are more likely to survive harsh winters.  That does not make having a thicker coat "moral," does it?

If you're so passionate about this issue, you should bother to be informed about it.

Edit: I'm sorry, I'm probably being overly pressive about this, but the idea that someone so world-conscious could misunderstand secular humanism so much is harsh

[Lief 🗽]

Honestly, this isn't really going to matter.  You don't really talk about evolution anyway until AP Biology anyway, and they only offer that at the few good high schools, and at those high schools, the students in those classes will just mock the stickers.

Wow, that's horrible. Evolution is central to biology; you can't teach the latter without the former.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Actually I am for this. You do realize that "evolution is science" is a lie that liberals use to censor opposing points of view.

[Jacobtm]

Actually I am for this. You do realize that "evolution is science" is a lie that liberals use to censor opposing points of view.

Evolution is observable. Evolution has been observed, in real time, in real organisms, by scientists.

Evolution merely states that:

Sexual reproduction passes on traits of mothers and fathers to their children.

Some individuals don't breed, some do, and some breed more than others.



If those two things are true, then over time, because some people die before they breed or never get the opportunity, and because some people breed more than others, the gene-pool of the population, and thus its overall characteristics, will change.

That is evolution.

Do you doubt the idea of DNA, or sexual reproduction?


The origin of life, however, is a completely different subject. Evolution makes no guesses about how life started, it merely describes how life changes.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Social Darwinism has as much to do with Darwinism as Christian Identity has to do with Christian -- that is, they both have the same word in their name.

Eugenics - one of the pillars of social darwinism - which was used as the "scientific" justification for the Holocaust was created by Darwin's own cousin, Francis Galton, using Darwin's work.

Prior to the Holocaust, eugenics was widely accepted among scientists and the "genetic varations among races" of people was taught alongside evolution in high school and college classes.

Do you think it was good for Eugenics to be taught in schools, given that it was the commonly accepted science at the time?

I respect you greatly and am not accusing you of agreeing with eugenics in any way, I am giving an example of a situation where the most modern science of a particular time may be dangerous to our social behavior.  

Eugenics did not die because it was scientifically disproven... It died because it became unpopular after the world realized that eugenics had been used as a scientific "justification" to murder millions.

Evolution does not equal eugenics of course (again, I believe in evolution as much as you do) - but one cannot deny the connections between Darwin's theory and eugenics, natural selection, and social Darwinism any more than I could deny the connections between religion, war, and conflict.  I just don't believe it should be taught without some doubt, some open door - whether in the context of the science class, religious teaching, or secular philosophical basis - to keep the student from assuming that they have the right to trample on the poor, the infirm, or the weak just because evolutionary traits allow them to do so.

[Marokai Backbeat]

And the mods wonder why I insult people.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Honestly, this isn't really going to matter.  You don't really talk about evolution anyway until AP Biology anyway, and they only offer that at the few good high schools, and at those high schools, the students in those classes will just mock the stickers.

Wow, that's horrible. Evolution is central to biology; you can't teach the latter without the former.

I had a perfectly good foundation in biology without being immersed in evolution.  (I was taught it in 8th grade, but in the context of "We have to teach this because this is what you hear out in the world and you should know about it, don't actually believe it".)

[dead0man]

Wow.  No wonder you've got such a funked up opinion on the issue then.  My apologies for you going to such a sh**tty school district.

[Alcon]

Don, I appreciate the respect, and know you mean well.  But I'd appreciate it even more if you'd been empathetic in the first place about the beliefs I hold, or at least not completely misdefined them.

...Evolution does not equal eugenics of course (again, I believe in evolution as much as you do) - but one cannot deny the connections between Darwin's theory and eugenics, natural selection, and social Darwinism any more than I could deny the connections between religion, war, and conflict.

Indeed.

Evolution is not a moral prescription.  It is neither "you are a monkey" (), nor "your life has no value."  It is not "survival of the fittest is in effect [morally]."  You're right -- science does not in itself prescribe a moral theory.  Science is a system of observing the world; observation in and of itself does not prescribe beliefs beyond perceived reality.  It cannot, by definition, prescribe moral values.  The mode in which observed phenomena are interpreted, determines our values.

I just don't believe it should be taught without some doubt, some open door - whether in the context of the science class, religious teaching, or secular philosophical basis - to keep the student from assuming that they have the right to trample on the poor, the infirm, or the weak just because evolutionary traits allow them to do so.

You can't simultaneously claim that evolution teaches that life has no value, and makes probative moral judgments.

I have no problem with introducing the reminder that evolution is an observable phenomenon, not a moral system.  (Besides, its application in modern humanity -- that more attractive, strong, interesting, whatever, people are more likely to reproduce -- is hardly evil anyway.)  That would be like prescribing, "x happens, therefore x is morally just."  That's stupid, and anyone who interprets science to say that is not 'getting' science.

I have no problem with noting that science is the exploration of observable phenomena, and is therefore limited to the capabilities of our observation -- potentially flawed by human error and misperception, and limited to the extent of the observable.

I do have a problem with arbitrarily and unnecessarily presenting a given religious belief as an alternative, not for scientific reasons but because it's a common faith in American culture.  (Which is a terrible standard to teach in a science class!)

I do have a problem with the implication that Christian moral systems are somehow the opposing force to "Darwinian morality," or whatever.  It's guilt by association.  Tthe eugenics stuff, the Crusades, whatever, let's learn our mistakes and move past this.  It's also bestowing an implied property (morality) on evolution that it does not claim.  And it has no real basis.  I mean, when you think of the most areligious population in the world, Scandinavians, do you think Social Darwinism?

More than anything, I have a deep problem with the idea that belief in evolution, disbelief in God, whatever, makes life meaningless.  I know that there are people out there who cannot imagine morality or life purpose without faith.  That, to me, is truly scary.

[Sbane]

I think microbiology provides us with the easiest way to observe evolution. Since most animals and plants we are familiar with have a very long generation time, it is very hard to observe evolution occuring. But microorganisms have very short generation times and evolution is actually observable. Why do you think multi-drug resistant TB is on the rise? The answer is evolution. And all you "non-believers" please explain how it could happen without evolution.

[Eraserhead]

Honestly, this isn't really going to matter.  You don't really talk about evolution anyway until AP Biology anyway, and they only offer that at the few good high schools, and at those high schools, the students in those classes will just mock the stickers.

Wow, that's horrible. Evolution is central to biology; you can't teach the latter without the former.

I had a perfectly good foundation in biology without being immersed in evolution.  (I was taught it in 8th grade, but in the context of "We have to teach this because this is what you hear out in the world and you should know about it, don't actually believe it".)

That's sad and disgusting. I truly feel bad for you and for all of the people taught at your school/school district.