That name doesn’t ring a bell, but holy cow, that open premise is Idiocracy. The one I am remembering did have a similar premise - I am probably remembering the synopsis of more than one story. It would probably help if I read more full texts
Florida's new Board of Education chairman: “I won’t support any evolution being taught as fact at all in any of our schools.”
I was thinking more an alternative history novel, starting in the enlightenment, but it all goes in a different direction from the start… not with liberal democracy or even political views like Marx emerging. You never get the age of revolutions at all (American, French, Haitian). Instead, the absolutists monarchists win out and dominate the European political and intellectual landscape well into what we consider the modern era. What would that change, if we all lived under a monarchy in the modern world that looks like the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and we had all done so for the last 300 or so years?
I like it. So would vast empires still exist? Or would like America have still rebelled, only they had a king and started their own monarchy?
That sounds like am amazing premise for an Anime series as well. Where everyone is still ruled by monarchies and everyone is in that highly adorned regalia and the various monarchs are at war. You’d have some crazy costuming for that one. (I’m finish Kill la kill finally, and have costumes on the brain.)
I don’t know… good questions, though. Another is would the modern technological landscape be similar or the same to what we have?
I’d start a little bit earlier, with these not happening.
OH! Maybe even a slight bit further back with the diggers and levelers not emerging?
But what would be the origin of the diverging timeline? Henry VIII gets his annulment from Catherine of Aragon, and never breaks with Rome? I think it’s worth considering how much of the enlightenment movement (at least in the English speaking world) goes back to the English break with the church in the first place. As England legitimately started to become a world power in the 18th and 19th centuries, much of what they did was propelled by their conflict with Catholic southern Europe (and colonization of Ireland, which itself was propelled by the privatization of land and the need to feed their own population).
Maybe we should start a new thread for this! LOL!
[ETA] Okay, I made a new thread so we can stop derailing this one! Please speculate wildly there and enjoy!
It’s long past time for University presidents around the USA to warn his state that students who are not taught evolution are not qualified to study pre-medicine or any aspects of bio-science and that their admissions offices will take this into account when considering applications from Florida public-school students.
Once again, someone who doesn’t understand the scientific meaning of “theory” using it in a casual way. A scientific theory is as close to fact as anything we can know. This guy is thinking he’ll score points with God by using his power to defend creationism. Smart children will accept evolution as fact so it doesn’t matter anyway.
Lot and his daughters?
This does explain why I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Key here is “cost the taxpayers”. Not him, the taxpayers. If it came out of his pocket, different story.
I don’t really think one has to believe in evolution in order to be a good doctor or nurse. You would if you were in some biological fields, perhaps. But given the need for good people in the medical field, not sure that is worth drawing a line in the sand.
How we got here isn’t very relevant to do I need surgery or what, doc?
Belief isn’t required for science.
Accepting the evidence and scientific method - and acting according to professional standards - that is.
And later that same day Mr. Tuck loudly denounced all of the current theories of gravity and was immediately ejected from the planet at high velocity leaving a trail of greasy smoke behind…
Thx for Buffy fix. Issues w Whedon aside - the cast does such a good job with building likeable and unique characters- mostly out of dreck.
You can be “Accepting the evidence and scientific method” for everything in the medical profession, and still have cognitive dissonance about evolution. Or cobbled together an understanding of evolution, but chooses to believe that it is guided through “intelligent design”. I actually know someone like this, and you would still be in good hands if you end up in her ER. (Though I’ve presented her with evidence, just like some of the other philosophical questions posted above, I can’t prove that God didn’t have a hand in evolution.)
Also, being a specialist in one scientific field doesn’t mean you know or understand anything about other fields. This is where you get engineers and doctors who are skeptical of climate science and or astronomers who don’t know how their cars work. etc.
I’d much rather have a doctor who also understands evolution and acknowledges evolution, but I think one can get good healthcare with out it (as long as they pass the relevant tests, of course.)
I feel like there’s a transitive property that implies this is also Bizarro World.
If you deny science that is as basic to medicine as evolution- you can’t be my doctor.
You shouldn’t be anybody’s Dr.
I understand we all have gaps in education, but if you have some gaps, that person should not be in charge of education governing those gaps for a state of 21 million people.
I know people accept evolution as man’s course through history wti God at the helm. They refuse to consider the randomness inherent in natural selection, that the progress in our/all species was and is dependant on an infinite number of variables and not God’s plan.