The battle over evolution and creationism in public schools forges on. And in Texas, where some social conservatives have advocated for a more balanced approach to the study of life’s origins, it seems creationists may be in for major disappointment.
Notice that social conservatives are merely asking for 'balance'; how could that be unreasonable? The answer is simple: the type of balance they'd like is not balance at all as it is appropriate to the discipline of biology. Scientists and sciences are responsible for reviewing/regulating the methods appropriate to their respective fields. In general, the scientific method includes the collection of empirical data, testing through observable experimentation and the formulation of hypotheses and predictions that can be so tested. Creationism conforms to none of these methodological requirements. Within evolutionary biology two scientists may disagree on the importance of alleles in replication or Dawkins' notion of the 'selfish gene'. And these sorts of disputes can (and perhaps should--depending on the level of education) be included in biology textbooks. That, however, is because both sides may be discussed within the confines of the methodology appropriate to the sciences. Creationism should be taught in schools (even secular, public schools) in classes on religion, history, philosophy. That represents balance.
There have been a number of articles recently regarding the terminology we use to designate certain categories of weapons: what is an assault rifle/weapon? what is the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon? I've addressed some of this myself in previous posts (I am not an expert, but I've been doing a modicum of homework on the subject). Many have pointed out that 'assault rifle' is an extremely vague term--and it is. Of course, there is only one conclusion to be drawn from this fact, viz., 'assault rifle' is an extremely vague term. Without introducing further premises you cannot draw the conclusion that assault weapons should not be banned (this may be the case, but simply pointing out the vagaries of the nomenclature won't get you there). However, I came across an even more interesting term this morning in an article on The Blaze: civilian rifle. Without any context, I assumed this referred to hunting rifles. Such rifles can be semi-automatic or entirely manual (they are generally not fully automatic). However, the article, by Liz Klimas, suggests that the AR15 (the AR stands for Armalite, not Assault Rifle, according to Klimas) is a civilian rifle, a sort of cousin of the M16, the former designed for civilian use (whatever that may be) and the latter for military use. Klimas is suggesting that there is a hard distinction between the AR15 and the M16, presumably with the intention of defending the former for civilian possession and use. There are a number of problems here. The first is historical: the AR15 was not designed by Armalite for civilian use but for military use in the early '50s--indeed, the AR15 seems to have been developed in response to the Operations Research Office, established by the Army in '48, looking for a better ground weapon. The design was later sold to Colt and Colt marketed it as a civilian rifle. The second problem has to do with functionality: the AR15 is not really functionally different from the M16--indeed, the M16 is simply the military name for an AR15 that has been slightly modified to be fully automatic. The fact that the AR15 can be modified in many different ways is precisely what makes the gun so popular. So, sorting out the nomenclature is interesting, and helpful, but does not (on its own) lead to any relevant conclusions).
Here is a video of an AR15 modified to be fully automatic (this process, as far as I can tell, is entirely legal).
