Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

That's what I would expect from someone who thinks that comparing a flagella to a bike pump has any meaning.

Who's talking about biology?

Me. I'm talking about biology. All the time. The physiology of habit formation. The function of habit on the biological systems. Psychosomatics. The role of schools in habit formation.

Never lead with material that youve not pre vetted spendi.

LOUISIANA UPDATE

But science, essentially mathematics and physics, has prejudged the issue because it takes a mechanical view of things. Which is fair enough with inanimate objects and forces. To pass from those to animate life as if there is no difference makes machines of us all.

The flagella as foot pump is science with its knickers down. The whole circularity is apparent from that one piece of Dover "evidence".

Evolution is an attempt to apply mechanistic thought to life.

The number one applied to one cow is one thing but the number one to denote singularity is an abstract concept. In the abstract one plus one equals two. But one cow plus one cow only equals two cows by conflating the two cows as equals. Which they are not.

All value theories, however much they fake objectivity, are inevitable developed out of subjective principles. Viewing the world exclusively mechanically is a subjective position. That such a view is convenient for proving that the Church's teaching on sexual morality is wrong is only a happy coincidence I suppose. But it is a glaring suspect as the source of the subjectivity.

But there is another great advantage. The scientific view provides a degree of clarity and as such is attractive to those who fear mystery. Inanimate entities are relatively easy to obtain clarity towards.

The Church's perceived view on sexual morality is metaphysical and decidedly inconvenient to our animal side. But it might be neither. It might be very scientific and very convenient for our animal side. The success of our Culture being the evidence.



Not useful for what? Not useful for keeping the circle intact is what he means. Which doesn't mean not useful for anything.

So words are used with lying intent.

It would be a mistake to say that the scientific/mechanical view is wrong because within its own circularities it can't be wrong for its supporters.

It will not be reasons or arguments which settle the matter but life itself.

Im amazed that it hasnt generated a case by now> Ive been sorta keeping eyes on this law. Its so one sided in its preamble of intent.
I guess gov Jindal doesnt hve any greater political aspirations . Hes gonna copme off like Santorum except this guy will be a doctrinaire for Mideaval SCience as his primary issue and control of womens reproductive rights as secondary.

It is your lot who want control of women's reproduction fm. Women have been doing without your scientific spaying techniques for a few million years. You are patronising women by saying that they need your spaying science and we all know why you have an organised conspiracy going in cahoots with the manufacturers of these horrible, femininity denying, mechanical devices and weird chemicals and the whole industry associated with their distribution and applications.

The boot is firmly on the other foot. You have been living with your comforting and convenient assertions for far too long.

Jindal... isn't he the guy who once performed a exorcism on some poor girl at college instead of taking her to the doctor?

I can accept the fact that the world is full of idiots. But it's distressing that so many of them find their way into public office.

Well--is he the guy who once performed a exorcism on some poor girl at college instead of taking her to the doctor? Or is he not? That looks like a smear. Who defined "exorcism"?



The old and trite assertion of a member of the special elite and one who can only be said to be able to read and write using the most basic of criteria.

Anybody distressed with the nature of office holders should stand for election. I presume that the USSC and the federal judges are included. They are public office holders and without their decisions anti-IDers would have nowhere to go.

What a silly plonker ros actually is. One might be persuaded to be an IDer simply by looking at this anti-IDer. Who would want to be in the same box as ros?

I hadnt heard of that event but perhaps gov Jindal was involved in other "Christian" efforts in his yout.
Hes kept his head down even since the McAin days. Perhaps hes even up for re-election. Im sure that he will be ree-elected handily. The onl thing thats going to end his gubernatorial career is the required two term law.
Seems that all the action is going on all around him. He only rises occasionally to sign some piece of legislation.

See how quiet hes been? Hes taken his second term of office oath on JAn 12 2012. So hes got till Jan 2016 to **** with the minds of the kids of Louisiana.

But he would say that you lot are ******* with the minds of everybody and not for the purpose of the exercise of governance which Mr Jindal has been elected to perform but for some personal agenda associated with sexual convenience for yourself.

How you can think that you are impressing people by declaring that an elected Governor of a State of the Union, and a Rhodes scholar, is ******* with the minds of the kids in his state, is a complete mystery to me. Your thoughts must be contorted with rage.

I hope you don't think we all believe that if you and ros and wande and ci. were put in charge of the educational system you would not **** with the minds of the kids. The logic of your position is to scrap the educational system altogether and let the kids be feral.

Your claque consists of the silliest team of stupid dick-heads (the literal meaning) I have ever come across in one place.

Are you going to inform your classes that a star has died so they may live. You must feel a deep truth in that garbage to use it on every silly post you feel it important enough to cast before our incredulous eyes.

Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift.

If you were to study birth rates, counted by baptisms, in Europe before and after plagues, famines and recessions you would see a rapid rise after such events. The corollary being that before the events the ladies were quite capable of avoiding conception without your battery of woman-hating gizmos and potions and bringing it on when they must have felt it was a duty to do so.

Sometimes the birth rate increased after such things despite wars having decimated the men.

It is you lot who want to control women. They proved with all those records that they can control themselves.

You have controlled women so that they now feel that they are expected to "put out" and your contraceptive devices, ghastly things all, are merely a sticking plaster to try to cover up the error. And obviously, high profile females have traditionally been serial "putters outers" which has led by a commodius vicus of recirculation to your assertion that the Church seeks to control women against their own interests being accepted as a fact when all it is is an example of the Goebells' dictum that repeating a lie often enough, the more bareassed the better, renders it true. The serial "putters outers" trying to render ready and eager "putting outing" respectable and "with it" and all. And the blokes in Media promote "putters outers" faster than they do naturally shy ladies and there is where your circle begins and ends.

One giant lie. As if a system of living lasting a thousand years and achieving such success could do so by controlling women against their interest. Fat chance of that.

And the eugenics aspect is to try to prevent the real women from outbreeding them by fitting them up with the DIY kits they themselves have employed in order that the "putting out" had no consequences, except possibly "a little local irritation" as Ms Julie Burchill famously said on TV.

Your big lie has got your opponents on defense all the time. I'm on the offense. And besides interfering with the reproduction function of womanhood there is an interference with their other claim to fame--homemaking. B&Q have taken that over.

When I was a lad getting them to get a tit out required magical incantations and the skilled manipulation of shiny objects of one sort or another. And I have a feeling that the young women in the pub today will never be as happy in their dotage as the silly old bats our ladies have turned out to be. It was even daring going in pubs. One of them calls about once a month to bring me a cake she has baked for me. Fantastic cake. And I don't tell her how fantastic they are just to get her to come more often. They are fantastic. I have had my munchometer on them a lot and they ring the bell on MAX.

I made a snarky clever dick remark the other day to four biddies having a brew round the kitchen table and I was forcefully told to "bugger off".

In my profession, I am constantly reading and evaluating scientific research. In addition, my job is the scientific method. The most trustworthy research is the type that acknowledges its limitations. For the research that doesn't (and even for the research that does) make this effort, I spend my own time to find the loop-holes. This is critical thinking. This is how science is meant to be applied. This is how progress is made.
Almost no evidence is flawless. Even the “most acceptable” and “best-practice” is subject to critique. The attitude that some so-called-scientists hold in saying, “Yes, this is what we know,” or, “No, that is not possible,” is a paradox. Science is not about reporting and knowing. Science is about examining and learning. It is about being skeptical with an open-mind. It is about taking advantage of what is unknown rather than holding arrogance in knowledge. It is through the loop-holes and paradoxes that true scientists find potential. If anyone needs evidence for what I have just said, pick your favorite theory, and think about how it came to be.

I don't think anyone said science was flawless, but the scientific method does have a way of correcting its own mistakes - and it has. What more can man ask for?

The favourite theory of our resident anti-IDers, dh, is that there is no God and I've been hinting how their theory came to be for 8 years and they won't take the slightest notice.

And there are books written on how Darwin's theory came to be. None of them I've seen think it was caused by too much wanking over the taffrail of the rocking and rolling Beagle in the Southern hemisphere.

A man like you wouldn't rule it out I presume.

Instead of saying that the “scientific method” has its way of correcting its own mistakes, I would prefer to say that “scientists” have their ways of correcting their own mistakes. Nonetheless, I believe that I understand your point, and will not argue where we understand each other.

That being said, to say that "it has [corrected its mistakes]" is, in my experience, dangerous. It is dangerous because it creates stagnancy. Perhaps, to say that "it has [corrected its mistakes]" might be true; however it is only true in the sense of looking backward. It is only true in sense of studying history. However, if science utilizes history, it utilizes it with the ultimate goal of looking forward. In looking forward, saying that "it has [corrected its mistakes]" is dangerous. Furthermore, even history suggests that saying that science "has [corrected its mistakes]," is a dangerous assumption. Science is, and should be, always changing.

Being okay with evidence is fine; however it is only fine for personal reasons. In all actuality, I have no problem with this. In fact, I would even go further and say that a degree of “faith in science” might be necessary, because humans have a personal need to make sense of the world. I do it for my own personal reasons as well. However, we need to separate ourselves from this type of thinking to separate science from faith. Being scientific is completely different than holding personal beliefs; even if we happen to believe that the science is correct.

Science requires active participation. Without questioning the paradigm, the paradigm doesn’t change. Without questioning, we are just listening to beautiful symphony and calling ourselves music makers. Scientists need to be both humble enough to admit that we are not certain, and courageous enough to challenge the authorities that believe that they are.

part of the stuff we get called on to evalate in "peer reviewing" is to develop any cases wherein the data or evidence does not support the main papaer or foundational conclusions.
In my area, when I get a bunch of professional journals I will often forst go back to the "Afterword" sections where point/counterpoint discussions go on between critics of a mprevious months journal article and the principal author.

However, when the term "critical analysis" is used by the many Louisianas of the country, it is usually based upon a faulty premise that is cast out to a class of poorly informed biology students. SO, their teaching has already been one sided and then they are exposed to what they call "Critical thinking" as defined by some religious network .
One of the "critical thinking" areas is that genomics doesnt support evolution based upon the sequentially additive similarities of all genomes, or that "the fossil record" does NOT support mdification of morphology of spepcies through geologic time.
In fact, these two areas are among the best examples of supporting evidence for evolution and, even more important, NO areas within thesedata and evidence can be found that are contrary to evolution theory.

I'm sorry, but I really don't know what you are saying. I wouldn't rule that Darwin might be wrong? No, I wouldn't for the sake of science.