Tennessee to teach the controversy

[russ_watters]

This comes awfully close to saying people should just teach "Science good. Religion bad." in the classroom.

In a science classroom, it really is that straightforward. In a philosophy/english classroom, you can still teach the literary content of religious texts. In Social Studies, you can teach the beeliefs and cultural aspects.

 

[russ_watters]

Religion and science are different ways of understanding different realms-one spiritual and the other physical. Attempting to place them in opposition needlessly reduces the potential of both to contribute towards understanding.

Here is an excerpt from “Science, Evolution, and Creationism” published by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine:

That's basically a very tactful way of saying that while science can't prove everything about religion wrong, many/most attempts by religion to explain phenomena with scientific implications are wrong and as science advances, its territory expands and religion's territory contracts.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Religion and science are different ways of understanding different realms-one spiritual and the other physical. Attempting to place them in opposition needlessly reduces the potential of both to contribute towards understanding.

Statements like this baffle and dismay me. When religions make factual claims or teach beliefs based on factual claims then they enter the realm of science. Factually correct understanding of any subject can only come from a rational interpretation of the evidence at hand, something that religions do not actively engage in. Furthermore it is monumentally fallacious (and again I'm dismayed to see it pronounced so often) to imply a segregation along the lines of science dealing with "just the physical world" when many if not most attributes of religions fall under scientific disciplines. Factual statements about the world clearly enter the arena of the natural sciences. Social statements, beliefs and practices enter the arena of both the natural and social sciences. Commonly I hear people say things like "science might be able to explain chemicals but it can't explain love, companionship and community" which is patently untrue. Neuroscience, psychology and sociology all strive to understand and thus develop things that religions frequently claim to themselves e.g. morality, personal and collective well being, social behaviour etc.

So once you realize that religion's factual claims about the universe are in the arena of the natural sciences and that social claims/practices are in the arena of the natural and social sciences then all you are left with is what you have already said; the so called "spiritual" side of things. But without a proper definition of what that means and any evidence that it is separate to physiological, psychological and social phenomenon you are stuck with the fact that the relationship between religion and science is not one that allows them to be separate, nor can they occupy the same place in both individuals and society.

 

[SixNein]

Tennessee is gearing up to pass a new bill:

http://www.care2.com/causes/tenness...and-holding-is-a-gateway-sexual-activity.html

Apparently, hand holding is a gateway to sexual intercourse.

 

[ThomasT]

Religion and science are different ways of understanding different realms-one spiritual and the other physical. Attempting to place them in opposition needlessly reduces the potential of both to contribute towards understanding.

Though I like your posts and hope you continue contributing, I disagree with this. What does spiritual realm refer to, objectively, wrt what actually exists outside of the emotional disposition and socialization of people who speak of spirits and a spiritual/supernatural realm?

Science, on the other hand, has clear cut objective criteria for ascertaining the truth of any statement about our world. Wrt the definition of the term evolution, the criteria are clear and unambiguous, and the fact that evolution occurs is indisputable -- though certain aspects of the specific mechanism(s) wrt which evolution proceeds are an open scientific question.

The important point, I think, is that religion is not a means or method to understanding our world. It is, rather, a set of unfalsifiable myths upon which a certain political structure and set of social traditions has been built. This apparently gives a certain comfort to those who choose to adhere to those traditions, but not to those who understand the basis of those traditions in a scientific way.

 

[ThomasT]

Tennessee is gearing up to pass a new bill:

http://www.care2.com/causes/tenness...and-holding-is-a-gateway-sexual-activity.html

Apparently, hand holding is a gateway to sexual intercourse.

Wow. What's up with Tennessee? You actually live there? If so, you have my sympathy. Just kidding in a way. No matter where you might go, there are pockets of this kind of thinking. The religious stuff, the anti-science stuff. I grew up with it.

But as Russ and others have noted, science advances on it's own merits. It isn't dependent on blind faith. If you want to build a bridge, or a building, or a machine, or get at the truth of some apparent statistical trend ... who you going to call?

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Spiritual stuff: why are we here, where did we come from, where do we go when we die? etc.

 

[ThomasT]

Spiritual stuff: why are we here, where did we come from, where do we go when we die? etc.

Neither science nor religion answers these questions. Maybe that's what spiritual means, ie., unanswerable, ie., meaningless. If you want to believe that the controlling agent is a human-like supernatural being with infinite powers, which is in conflict with another human-like supernatural being with infinite powers, both residing in their own domains, one domain which you will pass on to if you believe in it, and the other which you will pass on to if you don't believe in the other, then good luck with that. To me, these beliefs are a product of the social acceptance and furtherance of ignorant ancient mythology.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Spiritual stuff: why are we here, where did we come from, where do we go when we die? etc.

These are ambiguous, poorly formed questions. "Why are we here" firstly fails to define what here really means and secondly begs the question that there is a "why" that is not a "how". To explain further: the human race exists because it evolved on a planet that formed etc etc. Science can continue to endeavour to explain the processes of our history but until we have evidence of a purpose asking why is loading the question.

"Where did we come from" is a similarly bad question because when people ask it they tend to have some vague notion of divinity/supernatural purpose behind it. I say that because the answer of: the species evolved and across tens of thousands of years we spread across the globe and due to a variety of factors developed a variety of civilisations.

"Where do we go when we die" is probably the worst formed as it presupposes a "we" disconnected from life. It is an excellent example of begging the question. "I" insofar as my conscious mind ceases to exist when I die, it doesn't go anywhere and asking where it went is like asking "where does a flame go when blown out?" On the other hand "I" insofar as the physical body (that gives rise to me when it is healthy and awake) will probably be harvested for its organs and usable tissues before being cremated and the ashes scattered. "I" won't be around to see and confirm that but those are my wishes and my family has promised to carry them out.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Responding to russ_watters, post #142, to Ryan_m_b, post #143, and to ThomasT, post # 145.

Gentlemen: Thank you for your stimulating comments and interesting questions.

Albert Einstein supported the compatibility of some interpretations of religion with science. In an article originally appearing in the New York Times Magazine in 1930, he wrote:

“Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of
the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which
neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same
necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the
age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these
values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one
conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict
between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not
what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain
necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human
thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships
between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between
religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of
the situation which has been described.”

It seems to me that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully. Science and religion, when each is viewed in its own domain, are both consistent and complete.

Both science and religion represent distinct ways of approaching human experience. Science is closely tied to mathematics which is a very abstract experience. Religion is more closely tied to the ordinary experience of life. As interpretations of experience, science is descriptive and religion is prescriptive.

For science and mathematics to concentrate on what the world ought to be like in the way that religion does can be inappropriate because that may lead to improperly ascribing properties to the natural world. For example, in the sixth century B.C, Pythagoras, familiar to geometry students for his Pythagorean theorem, taught that the essence of the universe could be found in music and in numbers.

The reverse situation where religion attempts to be descriptive can also lead to inappropriately assigning properties to the natural world. One example is the now defunct belief in the Ptolemy planetary model that held sway until changes in scientific and religious thinking were brought about by Galileo and proponents of his views.

Many religious beliefs do not rely on evidence gathered from the natural world. On the contrary, an important component of religious belief is faith. This implies acceptance of a truth regardless of the presence of empirical evidence for or against that truth. Scientists cannot accept scientific conclusions on faith alone because all such conclusions must be subject to testing against observations. Thus, scientists do not “believe” in evolution in the same way that a person with religious faith “believes” in God.

The religion and science community consists of those scholars who involve themselves with what has been called the "religion-and-science dialogue" or the "Religion-and-science field." The community belongs to neither the scientific nor the religious community, but is said to be a third overlapping community of interested and involved scientists, priests, clergymen, and theologians. Institutions interested in the intersection between science and religion include the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, the Ian Ramsey Centre, and the Faraday Institute. Journals addressing the relationship between science and religion include Theology and Science and Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science.

IMO
• The starting point of every debate (like this Tennessee law) should be that America has separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment.

• Everyone of every faith is entitled to have and practice their religious beliefs.

• Since I am an antitheist I consider beliefs in spirits and Iron Age myths to be unreasonable and irrational.

• Cooperation between individuals and groups breeds trust. Compromise is the key to progress in resolving differences. Both cooperation and compromise are essential for the successful advancement of our society and our nation.

 

[russ_watters]

It seems to me that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully. Science and religion, when each is viewed in its own domain, are both consistent and complete.

That's nice to say but the fact of the matter is that religion is constantly trying to encroach on the scientific domain.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It seems to me that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully. Science and religion, when each is viewed in its own domain, are both consistent and complete.

Both science and religion represent distinct ways of approaching human experience. Science is closely tied to mathematics which is a very abstract experience. Religion is more closely tied to the ordinary experience of life. As interpretations of experience, science is descriptive and religion is prescriptive.

I would refer you to my two posts above regarding this. Trying to draw a line between science and religion is not possible. Religions takes observation of the natural world (ranging from observations of the universe at large to observations of personal feelings and socialisations) and interprets it through a dogmatic lens usually in order to derive indications on how to behave. Science takes the exact same observations and applies the scientific method to understand them.

To suggest that religion is consistent is false. To suggest that science and religion are complete is false. To suggest that science is closely tied to mathematics is true but to then conclude that it is very abstract and religion is closer to every-day life is very false. What about biology, psychology, sociology etc, are these not sciences dedicated to studying ordinary experience of life?

I appreciate the debate but I worry that you've adopted a popular mindset without critically thinking about it.

 

[ThomasT]

Since I am an antitheist I consider beliefs in spirits and Iron Age myths to be unreasonable and irrational.

We're basically on the same page then, and can joyously unite in ridiculing some ridiculous legislation.

The fundamental problem with religion is that it's based on faith, ie., belief without evidence, or in the face of evidence to the contrary, ie., irrational belief. Religious faith breeds willful ignorance.

So, what we've got is a bunch of willfully ignorant (but nonetheless greedy and financially astute) politicians pandering to their willfully ignorant constituencies.

Not a good situation, imho.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

These are ambiguous, poorly formed questions. "Why are we here" firstly fails to define what here really means and secondly begs the question that there is a "why" that is not a "how". To explain further: the human race exists because it evolved on a planet that formed etc etc. Science can continue to endeavour to explain the processes of our history but until we have evidence of a purpose asking why is loading the question.

"Where did we come from" is a similarly bad question because when people ask it they tend to have some vague notion of divinity/supernatural purpose behind it. I say that because the answer of: the species evolved and across tens of thousands of years we spread across the globe and due to a variety of factors developed a variety of civilisations.

"Where do we go when we die" is probably the worst formed as it presupposes a "we" disconnected from life. It is an excellent example of begging the question. "I" insofar as my conscious mind ceases to exist when I die, it doesn't go anywhere and asking where it went is like asking "where does a flame go when blown out?" On the other hand "I" insofar as the physical body (that gives rise to me when it is healthy and awake) will probably be harvested for its organs and usable tissues before being cremated and the ashes scattered. "I" won't be around to see and confirm that but those are my wishes and my family has promised to carry them out.

that's why they're spiritual, I think, because they are "dumb" questions. Why not beg the question? It's illogical, yes, and that's why it's "spiritual", I suppose, and not scientific. I'm not a very spiritual person myself, but I'm also only 20 years old so that might change someday. If you only think about these questions in the way you have, in a logical and rational sort of way, then you will get the answers you got. And they're pretty good answers, IMO, but not "spiritual" ones.

Again, I'm not very spiritual so I'm probably giving a very poor argument for the sake of "spirituality".

Science says, if I am correct, that if something cannot be observed, or experimentally verified, then it may as well not exist. That's one of the basic things about science, right? I could make up a hypothesis about invisible fairies being the source of gravity, but it would be entirely unscientific to do so because there'd be no way to prove it.

It's an axiom, I guess, in a way. Right?

While on the other hand, spirituality says that there is still a chance, I guess. Or at least they are not based utterly in observation. A person who is very spiritual would say that there is no reason to not believe in the faries holding us all down. It's entirely illogical and such, but it's a different way of thinking.



I don't think spirituality can answer any questions and I don't think that science can answer them all. Spirituality is a way for people to soothe themselves in regards to the unanswerable questions, or the illogical questions, in the same way the science "soothes"
people in regards to the physical universe.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't think spirituality can answer any questions and I don't think that science can answer them all. Spirituality is a way for people to soothe themselves in regards to the unanswerable questions, or the illogical questions, in the same way the science "soothes" people in regards to the physical universe.

Three points here:

1. As I've pointed out more than once science doesn't just deal with the "physical" universe. It deals with the whole universe including the things that we tend to forget about. It's very easy to think of maths, space and particles when someone says science but to do that is to ignore psychology, sociology etc.

2. If spirituality is simply a series of illogical beliefs to comfort then we have a problem because not only is that bad for oneself it is bad for society in general. Not always, some beliefs are totally harmless but never forget that beliefs determine actions and actions affect others.

3. None of this really helps with the argument that science and religion both have important things to say about things, especially within the context of this thread.

 

[phoenix:\\]

A weakness is in the "why"? Isn't that being less objective and going towards the route of concluding there is a fundamental motive out there determining the course of the universe? To assert such things on less than sufficient evidence is absurd in my opinion. For now, I thought science wasn't asking such things as "why" does this happen rather, how, given the data this can occur from that?

This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not
be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine

From my high-school science courses, the only weakness that was discussed was science doesn't have all the answers so we don't exactly know more than what has been conducted through experimentation and empirical analysis. I am tired but still, I don't think, given my past, you can conclude that this protects scientific information and doesn't detract from objectively trying to uncover more evidence, laws, etc...

Are private schools exempt from teaching such concepts in their curriculum? I am not well versed on this sort of law impacting schools that are considered private. I know you must teach a certain set of subjects and subjects that pertains to the school's core values, but doesn't this law/or would this law still impact the private school in the same manner as a publicly funded one?

 

[SixNein]

A weakness is in the "why"? Isn't that being less objective and going towards the route of concluding there is a fundamental motive out there determining the course of the universe? To assert such things on less than sufficient evidence is absurd in my opinion. For now, I thought science wasn't asking such things as "why" does this happen rather, how, given the data this can occur from that?



From my high-school science courses, the only weakness that was discussed was science doesn't have all the answers so we don't exactly know more than what has been conducted through experimentation and empirical analysis. I am tired but still, I don't think, given my past, you can conclude that this protects scientific information and doesn't detract from objectively trying to uncover more evidence, laws, etc...

Are private schools exempt from teaching such concepts in their curriculum? I am not well versed on this sort of law impacting schools that are considered private. I know you must teach a certain set of subjects and subjects that pertains to the school's core values, but doesn't this law/or would this law still impact the private school in the same manner as a publicly funded one?

I'd guess that this law is limited to public education.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Here is an excerpt from “Science, Evolution, and Creationism” published by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine [. . .]

Yes, I recall that publication from January 2008.

The following individuals of which some are religious did contribute to the book:

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE


Committee on Revising Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences

Francisco J. Ayala (chair) 1
Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of California
Irvine


Bruce Alberts1
Professor
Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics
University of California
San Francisco


May R. Berenbaum1
Swanlund Professor of Entomology
Department of Entomology
University of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign


Betty A. Carvellas
Science Instructor
Essex Junction High School (retired)
Essex Junction, Vt.


M.T. Clegg1
Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences
Department of Ecology and Evolution
University of California
Irvine


G. Brent Dalrymple1
Professor and Dean Emeritus
Oregon State University
Corvallis


Robert M. Hazen
Staff Scientist
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Washington, D.C.


Toby Horn
Co-Director
Carnegie Academy for Science Education
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Washington, D.C.


Nancy A. Moran1
Regents’ Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of Arizona
Tucson


Gilbert S. Omenn2

Professor of Medicine, Genetics, and Public Health
Center for Computational Medicine and Biology
University of Michigan Medical School
Ann Arbor


Robert T. Pennock
Professor
Department of Philosophy
Lyman Briggs School of Science
Michigan State University
East Lansing


Peter H. Raven1
Director
Missouri Botanical Garden
St. Louis


Barbara A. Schaal1
Spencer T. Olin Professor of Biology
Department of Biology
Washington University
St. Louis
Neil de Grasse Tyson
Visiting Research Scientist
Princeton University Observatory
Princeton, N.J.


Holly Wichman
Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Idaho
Moscow


NATIONAL ACADEMY STAFF


Jay B. Labov
Study Director

The above mentioned individuals are top notch in their field of expertize.

The article also states the following:

Scientific Evidence Supporting Evolution Continues To Grow; Nonscientific Approaches Do Not Belong In Science Classrooms

WASHINGTON -- The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and Institute of Medicine (IOM) today released SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM, a book designed to give the public a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the current scientific understanding of evolution and its importance in the science classroom. Recent advances in science and medicine, along with an abundance of observations and experiments over the past 150 years, have reinforced evolution's role as the central organizing principle of modern biology, said the committee that wrote the book.

"SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM provides the public with coherent explanations and concrete examples of the science of evolution," said NAS President Ralph Cicerone. "The study of evolution remains one of the most active, robust, and useful fields in science."

"Understanding evolution is essential to identifying and treating disease," said Harvey Fineberg, president of IOM. "For example, the SARS virus evolved from an ancestor virus that was discovered by DNA sequencing. Learning about SARS' genetic similarities and mutations has helped scientists understand how the virus evolved. This kind of knowledge can help us anticipate and contain infections that emerge in the future."

DNA sequencing and molecular biology have provided a wealth of information about evolutionary relationships among species. As existing infectious agents evolve into new and more dangerous forms, scientists track the changes so they can detect, treat, and vaccinate to prevent the spread of disease.

Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of populations of organisms, usually over multiple generations. One recent example highlighted in the book is the 2004 fossil discovery in Canada of fish with "intermediate" features -- four finlike legs -- that allowed the creature to pull itself through shallow water onto land. Scientists around the world cite this evidence as an important discovery in identifying the transition from ocean-dwelling creatures to land animals. By understanding and employing the principles of evolution, the discoverers of this fossil focused their search on layers of the Earth that are approximately 375 million years old and in a region that would have been much warmer during that period. Evolution not only best explains the biodiversity on Earth, it also helps scientists predict what they are likely to discover in the future.

Over very long periods of time, the same processes that enable evolution to occur within species also can result in the appearance of new species. The formation of a new species generally takes place when one subgroup within a species mates for an extended period largely within that subgroup, often following geographical separation from other members of the species. If such reproductive isolation continues, members of the subgroup may no longer respond to courtship from members of the original population. Eventually, genetic changes become so substantial that members of different subgroups can no longer produce viable offspring. In this way, new species can continually "bud off" of existing species.

Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, opponents have repeatedly tried to introduce nonscientific views into public school science classes through the teaching of various forms of creationism or intelligent design. In 2005, a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, concluded that the teaching of intelligent design is unconstitutional because it is based on religious conviction, not science (Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District). NAS and IOM strongly maintain that only scientifically based explanations and evidence for the diversity of life should be included in public school science courses. "Teaching creationist ideas in science class confuses students about what constitutes science and what does not," the committee stated.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?recordid=11876

Thanks for bringing back the memory of the debate that went on with young Earth creationists,intelligent design creationists, etc.

 

[Gokul43201]

Somewhat related ... even if only to provide an argument against the position: "I don't live in that state. Why should I care?"

But also, it's hilarious.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/413074/april-23-2012/don-mcleroy

 

[Danger]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/413074/april-23-2012/don-mcleroy

I just get an "unavailable video" message.
It might be a copyright issue. I've run into that before, with things that can't be accessed from outside of the US. I've probably already seen it, though, since I watch the show pretty much every night.

 

[D H]

Somewhat related ... even if only to provide an argument against the position: "I don't live in that state. Why should I care?"

But also, it's hilarious.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/413074/april-23-2012/don-mcleroy

I do live in that state. Fortunately my kids are all out of school now.

 

[SixNein]

Somewhat related ... even if only to provide an argument against the position: "I don't live in that state. Why should I care?"

But also, it's hilarious.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/413074/april-23-2012/don-mcleroy

I think he should be made president.

 

[Gokul43201]

I just get an "unavailable video" message.
It might be a copyright issue. I've run into that before, with things that can't be accessed from outside of the US. I've probably already seen it, though, since I watch the show pretty much every night.

Danger, this was from last night. The full episode is also available on hulu.com

 

[ViewsofMars]

I would like add a tad more to this topic. It saddens and bothers me to think that there are people in Tennessee and elsewhere who want to 'teach the controversy'.

Once again as an American I went looking for support of evolution in an attempt to help those who want to 'teach the controversy' know that there really isn't any controversy. We are Americans and should stick together and not be divided as a nation. It is important for youth of today to know that adults support each other and the education of the youth of today .

The American Society for Microbiology has a wonderful resource for K-12 teachers: http://www.asm.org/index.php/education/k-12-teachers.html

Here is a section from Mark Gallo, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Biology, Niagara University, NY - Intended Audience K-4, 5-8, 9-12:

National Science Education Standards Addressed

Standard A: Science as Inquiry - Students will analyze evidence regarding the process of natural selection and reflect upon this simulation and how it relates to present knowledge and thinking on evolution.

Standard C: Life Science - In completion of this activity, students will discover more about the structure and function of DNA, an integral part of life science. Students will also learn about DNA on a molecular basis, as the molecule responsible for heredity. Students will complete activities in which they discuss that DNA provides genetic continuity between generations. This activity explores at a molecular level many of the key points for natural selection as the driving force for evolution.

Standard E: Science and Technology – Addition of the CLUSTAL analysis will provide an opportunity for the learner for ways to see how important technology is to investigate scientific questions. Use of the mentioned algorithms that model the process of natural selection are also valuable means for students to design their own experiments and carry them out in a simulation.

Standard F: Science in Personal and Social Perspectives – The theory of evolution remains a topic of fervent discussion in the U.S. and is challenged by other groups using non-scientific means. This activity provides a clear, concise model of the events that lead to many of the steps necessary for evolution by natural selection.

Standard G: History and Nature of Science - The theory of evolution has been under societal attack by some groups since its inception. The polarization around this issue is the largest of its kind in the scientific community. Students will investigate some of the early arguments used to defend evolution and how the arguments have been strengthened in light of molecular biology. Bioinformatics information provides irrefutable evidence for the power of the process of evolution by natural selection. http://www.asm.org/images/MDA-PDF/mda-evolutionofdnabwpdf.final.pdf

Please note that I have highlighted in red what needs to be done rather than 'teach the controversy' otherwise it appears to me the National Science Education Standards will not be taken seriously. We should protect the youth of today by supporting the National Science Education Standards. "UNITED WE SHOULD STAND!" should be every American's motto when it comes to education. Thank you.

 

[Danger]

Danger, this was from last night. The full episode is also available on hulu.com

Ah... that explains it, then. I had to go out to vote Monday. After such an arduous undertaking, I decided to make the best of it and socialize a bit on the way home. I got here about half an hour after the show was over.
Both Hula and Colbert's own website also give me "unavailable video" messages. Luckily, the show is carried by CTV here, so I just tapped into their site and watched it. As my uncle Bugs would say, "What a maroon!"
I also see by the opening of the same show that in Arizona a woman is now considered to be legally pregnant as soon as she ovulates. Does that mean that menstruation is illegal because it constitutes abortion? If so, how do they plan to prevent it?