Yarp.
I have a friend who describes his religious persuasion as “Bayesian”.
It’s an interesting though nerdy idea, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Rather than a belief per-se, Bayes Theorem describes how we should change our existing beliefs in the face of new evidence. Based on this premise alone, you can start from almost any initial set of beliefs and converge over time towards truth, so long as you don’t hide.
There’s even some maths involved, so how cool is that…
The secret to winning Democracy 3 is to carefully make all the religious people migrate out of your country first.
I get the feeling that banning creationism completely from schools will run into issues of free speech. If there are students in a class who hold to that view, and a science teacher isn’t allowed to teach about it, I don’t know how the teacher could refute those views without running afoul of the ban.
Fwiw, the main creationist group in Australia is officially against the teaching of creationism in public schools. http://creation.com/the-teaching-of-creation-in-schools. They would prefer it not taught at all than taught by “hostile” teachers.
I think scientists and actual teachers* should collaborate to write the curriculum; and there needs to be plenty of room in the curriculum for teachers to be teachers and to adjust the content according to their students’ needs.
I think the only official position we as a party should take is that the curriculum needs to be sufficient for students going into science at uni and to understand how the world works, and that teachers need to cover all the main areas of the curriculum, whatever else they do for their students. Unofficially we should get a say in who these scientists and actual teachers are who write this curriculum.
*actual teachers meaning people actively teaching students, not “education experts” because iirc, it was “education experts” who decided to take grammar out of the English curriculum.
Apparently creationists on the street didn’t get the memo.
because scientists are not in charge of what is taught as science in schools.
I like this as a general framework for policy, not just religious belief. Requires everyone to be able to stand back and examine own beliefs, regardless of position on a given topic. Good stuff.
Evidence based policy is one of the defining principles of our approach to policy development. You may notice the references cited below published policies.
It’s easier to understand genetic algorithms.
Btw, it’s not survival of the fittest. It’s the 70th percentile, ala Woodstock. Look around you at the biomass. And count the tigers, lizards, snakes, mice.
Go to hell, blind Darwin followers, who started the world’s worst race condition.
The fact that it works ( the evolutionary process) and can be observed scientifically ( currently mostly empirical methods) means it exists. Game over.
Also one is referred to the passage in the book of Tim Ferris counting the number of occasions ( 50+ if one remembers correctly ) that he’s broken his bones in his eternal quest to be the best he can be at whatever.
And then let us try and understand the medical establishment that enables that.
And give us our multi-storey hosptial at every corner. Let us very seriously use the moral hazard argument here.
Also if the definition of an Australian architect is to complain about the collapsed bridge at the New Delhi Asian Games, instead of studying the numbers of airports built under Public Private IPO.
Then.
The main problem with “Evolution”, however, is that, according to all the rules (laws) of logic, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics (statistically) it is completely impossible.
“Evolution” is a purely ideological assumption fraudulently marketed as “science”. It has no foundation in any valid scientific method and is merely a fanciful interpretation of some carefully “cherry-picked” and equally carefully edited and censored natural phenomena by a world locked in stunted adolescent egomania.
What.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” -Sagan.
Evidence?
Very compelling displays of infantile ignorance and adolescent egomania. Clearly, you have no rational (as in scientific observation and logic) basis for the ideology you wish to impose.
My guess is that you will be advocating psychological “re-education” concentration camps for anyone who dares question your irrational ideology. It has been the standard “remedy” for such ideologues since Mme. Guillotine proved pretty ineffective at “enlightening” the world.
It seems to me that The Pirate Party is just another psycho-political con-job marketing mental slavery branded as the “liberty, equality, fraternity” version snake oil.
One of our slogans is Freedom Democracy Science.
Scientific consensus is that life evolves through the process of evolution. If you believe otherwise, the onus is on you to prove otherwise. We go with the scientific consensus.
If you want an explanation of what evolution is, just look up Wikipedia like most people would do.
Naaawwwww but I like posting evolution memes.
I didn’t come down in the last shower, Frew.
How does “scientific consensus” differ from political or ideological “consensus”?
It can be measured and replicated.