61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 05:32 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Banners like banning. They think up what to ban later. It's a form of control freakery.


You don't have much of a feel for what the ACLU does, do you?

you're a lovely old codger Spendius but you do blather on...
God bless you...
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 05:33 pm
@edgarblythe,
He's stuck in the 19th century Edgar...
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 05:41 pm
@panzade,
No doubt. I think I could share a Lone Star Beer with him in his favorite pub, but I can't see how he manages to spew so many big words, signifying nothing.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 05:44 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Apparently the entertainment outweighs the blasphemy.


Exactly Ed. Media wants to ditch Christianity because media thrives on mayhem and what the Chinese call, ironically of course, "interesting times".

Cripes!! If they had to entertain us with the outpourings of the editor's nieces and the daughters of his golfing partners without mayhem they wouldn't be able to sell a single flattened out tree. They would have to have a different recruitment policy and the nieces and daughters would have to work in shops and chicken packing plants like lesser mortal's daughters have to do.

You're no socialist Ed. That's for sure.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 01:12 am
@edgarblythe,
I have no idea what he's writing about but it's nevertheless intriguing like vomiting after a night's drunks. A Lone Star Beer at Lucille's in Brea, Ca sounds really good (they have so many on tap). Trouble is, I would succumb to the barbecued ribs and get stuffed beyond my small frame. But I would sleep like a baby.
0 Replies
 
babsatamelia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 02:26 am
EVOLUTION versus THE CONSEQUENCES OF IT
If you get a chance to have a look at a new documentary film very
aptly titled 'Home' you may agree that we all (whether we are the
progeny of Adam & Eve or we struggled up out of the primordial
ooze) that WE have way more vitally important issues to be haggling
about than THIS particular one. In a manner that evokes a sense of
the immense beauty and majesty of our planetary home, this little
documentary affords one a sense of deep foreboding when looking
at issues that actually are a "result of evolution" you might say (which
I find sort of amusing, actually) I believe no matter what side of the
fence you sit on regarding the origin of the species, folks, you will be
forced to admit all these people so busily arguing over evolution VS
the Bible are really wasting valuable time on something LAME and
would be far wiser to put all of that energy in favor of trying to deal
with a real threat to us all. It is time to join hands in a fight that is
actually FOR something REAL. A fight to save our home planet just
strikes me as an issue of vastly greater importance than haggling
over evolution, call me sentimental or call me crazy - but THIS IS an
actual, bonafide real problem that makes US look like a bunch of
greedy, spoiled rotten 3rd grade kids TOO busy with petty fighting
to notice what a mess we've made of the classroom!
Home is a very apt title to this monument to man's ability to take
something absolutely magnificent & run it into the ground in a very
short time. WOW, when looking at the vast amount of damage done
to this little ball, this place where we all survive together, things like
the results of that damage and where do we stand right now at this
point in time in terms of facing up to some very tough questions, as
well as a very real need for some kind of action, and what percentage
of a chance do we even have - regarding whether or not we aren't
already too late to save the planet that's HOME to us all; regardless
of what our religious or scientific opinions are. It sure does make
the evolution argument look senseless in the face of such a reality.
We've got some things going on right here & now that are surely
far more important to fight about AND heck yes, to FIGHT FOR!

edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 04:44 am
@babsatamelia,
You appear to mistakenly believe that because we argue the topic, it is our whole lives and concerns. But you can find all of us on other threads participating in a wide range of discussions. Believe it or not, most people can discuss more than one topic in a day's time.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 01:57 pm
@edgarblythe,
...and chew gum too! LOL
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 03:19 pm
@babsatamelia,
It is actually a very important issue babs. I don't know that there's another in the same league. It's a "Crossroads for America" issue. Presidents and police actions overseas come and go. God or No God is seminal.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 06:38 am
Quote:
Mount Vernon teacher doesn't have much of a case
(By STEVE GOBLE, Mansfield News Journal, June 14, 2009)

The saga of Mount Vernon teacher John Freshwater continues, this time to the tune of$1 million.

That's a really expensive tune, so school districts across the country will be watching closely.

Freshwater is fighting to keep his job after several allegations, including that he taught his religious views to students rather than teaching them science. Other accusations were that he defied an order to remove his personal Bible from the top of his classroom desk and that he used a classroom device to burn the image of a cross onto a student's arm.

The teacher was fired, and is fighting the school board's move in ongoing hearings. The freshest wrinkle is the lawsuit he filed against the district last week, contending that his free speech rights were violated.

Does he have a case? Not much of one.

Freshwater's supporters focus on the desktop Bible, because that's the strongest card in their hand. If this case were about nothing but the Bible, Freshwater would deserve to win. Eighth-graders certainly are old enough to figure out some of their teachers are Christian. Many probably have seen their teacher at church. The mere presence of the Bible on the desk does not violate church-state separation.

Freshwater contends other teachers kept Bibles on their desks without raising eyebrows from the administration. That may be so, but it undermines his contention that he's the victim of persecution because of his religion; apparently, his firing really was about what he was teaching, and not about an administration that wanted to persecute a Christian.

Once discussion moves away from the Bible, Freshwater's case wobbles like a Weeble -- and then falls down. Freshwater is accused of teaching non-scientific, religion-fueled creationism instead of science. On this score, the teacher's lawsuit should fail.

Basically, he is accused of undermining legitimate science -- evolution theory -- and pressing make-believe "science" based on Scripture.

Freshwater's lawyers may press an "academic freedom" argument, insisting teachers must be able to discuss a wide range of ideas in order to do their jobs. The argument sounds impressive, loaded with yummy fair-play goodness and seems like a common-sense idea -- until you consider that those who support teaching creationism in public schools want the academic freedom to teach the equivalent of five plus five equals nineteen.

If there actually was a scientific case to be made for creationism, the academic freedom argument would work. But there isn't such a case, and so the academic freedom argument fails.

Here's an academic freedom argument that does make sense: Proponents of creationism and intelligent design have the academic freedom to assemble a legitimate scientific case. They've always had that freedom, and haven't made a case yet, but they're welcome to try.

The lawsuit -- and its hefty $1 million asking price -- could have an impact that goes well beyond Mount Vernon and Ohio. Superintendents elsewhere have to contend with teachers who think Genesis is a science textbook, too, and so they will be watching closely.

The case also echoes the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District decision from 2005 -- but not in a way that favors Freshwater. In that case, a school district required presentation of intelligent design in the curriculum as an alternative to evolution as an explanation of life's origin (although evolution theory doesn't even try to explain life's origin ... but never mind that for now).

The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy was thus unconstitutional. The intelligent design and creationism proponents had their chance to make a scientific case, and they flopped.

Freshwater's insistence that his free speech and religion rights are violated just because he doesn't get to teach his religious views in a public school -- supported with public funds -- deserves to flop, too. He has a right to believe whatever he wants and preach whatever he wants on his own time. On the public's time, and with the public's pay, he is supposed to teach science.

The courts now have another chance to make that perfectly clear.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 08:21 am
@wandeljw,
I suppose Freshwater thought there were other fish to fry, trying to interject religious superstition of the origins of man into the classroom, so he sauteed up this stinky, spoiled meal to poison his students' minds and make a point. The Creationuts are trolling around for any pathway into the classroom but with this case lost, this is going to be a footnote in history that will make the Monkey Trial seem like the trial of the century.

I don't know any of my religious friends who believe the Old Testament account who are Creationuts -- they believe strongly that this puts religion squarely into the political arena where it doesn't belong.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 09:06 am
@Lightwizard,
Quote:
If there actually was a scientific case to be made for creationism, the academic freedom argument would work. But there isn't such a case, and so the academic freedom argument fails.

A point that the Biblical literalists and the IDers fail to recognize
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 09:23 am
http://blogs.laweekly.com/fish/assets_c/2009/06/FlyCreationism-thumb-480x464.jpg
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 09:33 am
@edgarblythe,
Laughing
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 03:07 pm
@edgarblythe,
...and the **** he made smelled to high heavens!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 05:03 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
If there actually was a scientific case to be made for creationism, the academic freedom argument would work. But there isn't such a case, and so the academic freedom argument fails.

A point that the Biblical literalists and the IDers fail to recognize


Oh no. You have it on Ignore and hence, having not listened to it, your conclusion is based on that. Thus circular. Unscientific, And stupid.
Asuming dangerous flirtations are stupid.

There is a scientific case to be made for creationism and therefore the academic freedom argument does work but if you have it on Ignore, as you do, the idea that it fails is, once again, like everything you say, circular and, as such, drivel.

Saying there isn't a case is a mere assertion and thus not worth a blow on a ragman's trumpet as is also any conclusions which automatically follow based on the assertion.

Any self respecting infidel would be appalled at your pathetic defence of his position. He might easily ask you to leave the field on the basis that every time you pontificate you make infidels look like complete diddicoes.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 05:09 pm
@edgarblythe,
"In the beginning God made a whole lot of **** and wasn't that a wonderful thing for us flies."

Mummy Fly, I can tell by the footwear, wouldn't want Baby Fly having nightmares about there being no ****.
tenderfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 06:47 pm
@spendius,
You claiming the "mummy fly " is your mum???
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 08:48 am
Quote:
Lucy & Ida "The Link"
(Houston Museum of Natural Science, Press Release, June 16, 2009)

When the famous 3.2 million-year-old hominid known as "Lucy" was discovered by Dr. Donald Johanson and his team in 1974 at the site of Hadar in Ethiopia, the find sparked major media coverage across the globe. After years of research, Johanson announced his analysis of the new species, Australopithecus afarensis, which drew worldwide attention, criticism and further research from other scientists--a process of ongoing discovery that continues to redefine the human evolutionary tree.

Recently, the world was introduced to another spectacular fossil: a 47-million-year-old female mammal nicknamed "Ida," described in scientific circles by Dr. Jørn H. Hurum and his colleagues and popularized through a world-wide media blitz. Christened Darwinius masillae, Ida has been hailed by all as one of the very best and most completely preserved fossils from our human heritage. Is she THE Missing Link? Some say yes; some say no. But without question she is a window into our primate past when the key adaptations of opposable thumb and big toe had just evolved.

"In a way, every fossil is a missing link. Evolution doesn't produce one line. It's like a blueberry bush. There are many branches and side branches," said Dr. Robert Bakker, Curator of Paleontology at the Houston Museum of Natural Science. "I call her 'Great Auntie Ida.' She may not be our Darwinian grandmother but she was a close kin. She shows us the way we were when our Primate Order was young."

The appearance of Lucy and Ida, each in their own time, rekindled a vigorous academic debate about human origins, a debate that excites and informs the public as well.

"The key to scientific progress, and to successfully teaching science in the classroom as well, is exactly the kind of lively, object-based dialogue that engenders a passionate--and hopefully thoughtful--exchange of ideas," says Joel A. Bartsch, President of the Houston Museum of Natural Science. "If everyone in the scientific community agreed on absolutely everything, we would never have any scientific progress at all. We tried that once already; we call it the 'Dark Ages.'"

Starting June 24, people will be able to see firsthand the sources of this spirited debate when original specimens of the world's most famous fossils Lucy and Ida (Plate B) go on public display together in Lucy's Legacy: The Hidden Treasures of Ethiopia at Discovery Times Square Exposition™, a new exhibition facility located in the former printing presses building of The New York Times at 226 West 44th Street, New York City.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 10:15 am
@wandeljw,
Hurry, hurry, hurry. Tickets are selling like hot cakes.

Put a sock in it wande. That's an ad. Are you on commission?

The "blueberry bush" was a strange choice. Idiotic even.

They are only a few inches tall in the Darwinian wild and spread sideways. Even the commercial plants are only about 4ft tall and they can hardly be said to be Darwinian. They can also hardly be said to suitably symbolise the grand history of life. Their branches are more like twigs.

Anybody who didn't titter reading that mush should seriously think of taking remedial English Literature in the Adult Education Classes.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.57 seconds on 07/09/2025 at 11:26:51