Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Evolution happens. The consequenses as defined by you are of no moment in the discussion.

wande dealt with professors earlier. He made them sound idiotic. Completely out of their depth dabbling in the education of a nation. Jumping up like jack-in-a-boxes with the crassest banalities and absurdest generalisations in the service of seeing their name in the paper.

And here's "old faithful" praising them like as if they are going to save America with their tin-pot notions. He's as bad as one of Pavlov's dogs. His reflexes are that predictable and carry about the same weight.

High sounding titles have an effect on him which is faintly pleasureable. "Professor" and "Scientist" make him come over all funny like I do when I see "Can-can girl's knickers."

We used to play a game in the pub, a word game, where we offered verbal imagery in competition with each other. Only occasionally. Like "Baroness Trumpington doing the splits." Foolish stuff of that genre. It passed the time.

"The nurse's home laundry basket."

That assertion certainly has no momentum.

It is exceedingly silly as a response to my question. In Texas there is a split school board who have to define consequences. I presume you are not in favour of letting evolution go its own way.

I'm just supporting one side and you are supporting the other. It's a common thing on A2K. To declare my support for one side to be of no moment is just a long winded way of declaring yourself right. And thus your side.

As such pathetic. And we don't want that taught in schools.

Bingo. My side is 100% right. Evolution is How did we get from point A (the beginning of life) to point B (the present). All other considerations belong in other discussions.

It's impossible to argue with banalities of that nature.

And further to that you are not the judge of what goes on this thread or any other.

I am not trying to dictate what goes in this thread. Only pointing out the nature of the thread intent, which is evolution, not Huxley or or Bob Dylan.

The thread is about teaching evolution and not evolution itself.

Even so. Teaching evolution, or challenging the teaching, has nothing to do with most of what you post here.

Well Ed- my suggestion that the theory of evolution itself is the principle reason why evolution theory should not be taught to young people has not been responded to yet.

The drivel you are posting has **** all to do with anything that I can detect.

You have yet to post a reasonable objection. All I get from your posts is, "I don't like it; nobody ought to learn about it."

If we tied him in a killick , he could serve as a suitable drag anchor. He has a function.

Bullshit. I posted this only the other day-

"The biggest joke is that the greatest challenge to teaching evolution is the theory of evolution itself. Only those with no understanding of the theory and its implications, the importance of which is proved by the debate, could possibly think otherwise. The theory demands, by showing us the beast in ourselves, that we must do something to set it aside. And science cannot do that. "

It's so reasonable that you lot have had to ignore it and resort to playgroundspeak. And wild petulant assertions which mean nothing.

Yes--I like that. Trying the slow down the drift of your boat so it doesn't fetch up on the rugged shores of madness.

However, he's under water so he shouldn't have lasted past about three minutes. Oh, but I forgot, he's so full of hot air, he would rise to the surface and although he's still be a bit of a drag (maybe literally if he gets turned by trying on female lingerie), the boat would sail forward into the sunset. It seems the cold water won't cool the hot air so he'll just drown. Then we'd have a ridiculously fragmented melange of philosophical and religious flotsam and jetsam floating behind us, bobbing up and down in an attempt to get attention. I think that's already happened and he hasn't yet drowned!

For those who can't reconcile in their little noggins that evolution is being introduced in high school biology classes (I certainly don't remember it in junior high school, but that's likely changed, perhaps demographically by school board), wake up and smell the coffee. I only remember there was only the basic Darwinism, including "Origins of Man" which was abridged appropriately for that age. The state-of-the-art at that time had no DNA analysis, many fewer fossil discoveries, but did have carbon dating and many other scientific procedures when presenting a simplified version of evolution and natural selection. That's how all subjects are first introduced. Could there be someone so loony to believe mathematics is introduced with calculus? I really did not get any of the real meat of any subject until college (at the time, calculus was not available in high school, but trigonometry was and I couldn't get up any real interest in that subject, not wanting to be a surveyor). There's no reason for not introducing the science of evolution into public schools and if the debate is still "at what age," that's for the school boards to decide. Electing school board officials makes about as much sense as electing judges. How may voters actually research who these people are? They do not give their political bent on the ballot or ballot instructions as they are not suppose to be elected for that reason. I don't believe the voting public should be trusted electing school boards, but especially not judges -- that's just incredibly naive and stupid.

These A2K evolution debates are not about teaching evolution to anybody who never got past their high school biology classes and promptly forgot most of it.

The insane prejudice that it should not be taught to young people because it would taint their souls is that of a very tired old mind from some era far in the past, much earlier than the 18th Century farmerman suggested or that practically it shouldn't be taught because it's "too complicated" but still offers ID as something which is "not complicated?" Bullshit. It's more complicated to try and pull off the bait-and-switch off all ID theories -- which really are just theories (their buzz word for myth) and not by any real scientific principals and processes.

I'm guessing spendi feels that the head in sand approach is the way to deal with the truth.

I don't think Spendi cares about the truth Edgar. He doesn't care if he's right or wrong, he doesn't care about the subject, he doesn't care if people deride him for being an idiot or a drunk, and he doesn't care if he's making sense or not. He's only here to push people's buttons and draw attention to himself. Unfortunately he's quite effective at it.

That's right Ed. The truth is obscure--too profound and too pure--to live it you have to explode.

I don't think it's any more than a buzz word for you. A word you only need use and everybody is supposed to think you're a wise old sage.

As for LW--what can one say? A trip round the elementary.



There could indeed. The whole field of mathematicians and scientists from the last 400 years. That's all. It was "sums" before that. They call "sums" in the US mathematics because it make them feel scientific.

It's you lot who are back with the ancients.



Oswald Spengler. The Decline of the West. Meaning of Numbers.

Where is "perspective" before calculus? Where are the light machines known as cathedrals? Magian religious buildings exclude direct sunlight. Calculus is mathematics and the Prime Symbol of the Faustian culture.

Try Spengler sometime LW. Find out just how thick and old fashioned you actually are.

I accept that your remark will be believed by those readers who have majored in Math but so what?

The fundamentals of evolution theory were known in about 500 BC. See From the Greeks to Darwin by H.F. Osborn (New York 1894). Thales, Anaximander, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Democritus, Anaxagoras, Aristotle, Epicurus, Lucretius, Augustine, (the idea of causaliter, (or ID), Aquinas, Pusey, Aubrey Moore, Bacon in Novem Organum, Liebnitz, Herder, Schelling, Goethe, Maupertuis, Bonnet (who invented the word evolution), Ray, Linnaeus, Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, Lamark, Grant, plus an inspiration from Malthus.

All these are treated extremely perfunctorily in Historical Sketches which Darwin was shamed into including in the 3rd edition of Origins. In fact in that document he takes an argument from Empedocles which Aristotle quoted in order to debunk and gives it as Aristotle's own and omits his debunking.

Basically Darwin compiled a sort of Yellow Pages without any reference to the systems that made the telephone possible.

Milton's picture of Creationism in Paradise Lost Book VII accompanied Darwin on his travels. It is said that Milton was his favourite reading as a young man.

Prof. Willey wrote-



All your posts are infantile. Everytime you switch a light on you deny your own thesis.

Evolution has the ability to stand on its own, because it is not Darwin or any other person. So you can relate anecdotes about him and others to your heart's content, with no effect. When are you going to look at the science itself?

I expect Spurious to look at reality at about the same time Hell freezes over. So, if you see Old Nick sharpening his skates . . .

It's mind-boggling that grown men should debate in the manner I am facing across this particular table. They seem to be unable to realise that their posts don't mean anything.

Non-combatants who read here should take a look at their contributions serially. They are pathetic. And none moreso that that last one from Set.

Where was the reality in that compared to the cited reality in my last post.

Were I a rabid American atheist I would object to these people for bringing your great nation into serious disrepute.