Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

They are, its just that they seem to be organized like an Irish Wedding.

Scientists do seem to have as much problem organizing as the Christian church. The church is drastically divided to begin with and not just Catholics against Protestants, but all over the world there are a multitude of sects and even cults, none of them in real agreement on the Bible, Christ, saints, angels, the devil -- you name it and they will obfuscate it. Then there's the Episcopalian vs. the Catholics, and need Ireland be mentioned as far as religious rivalry? That's why "organized religion" is an oxymoron. Scientists don't really have a single, congealing organization that could be the the driving force for explaining the latest findings of evolution. Perhaps that would be a bad thing, however, as bureaucracies always end up being the same. Church bureaucracy is a tangled mess -- look how long it took the Catholic church to address the child rape abuse (the old smarmy jokes about the "choir boy" we're truer than anyone expected). Where I had to wait perhaps a week for a corporate approval on a lighting or audio/video job, I did work for the Methodist Church basically free as a consultant and getting the goods for them at cost and the bureaucracy was unbelievably involved. They finally decided they could not afford it (in an upscale Orange County community). The job was less than $ 10,000. and I had put over a thousand dollars worth of time into it and it was months before any decision. Never did that again!

Anyway, we are left with science journalists where one has to be familiar with their credentials as well as the stature of the magazine. I don't just rely on Scientific American or Discover Magazine as there are other science journals that aren't especially in the popular public media one can read online.

The argument from special creation is not capable of being answered. Special creation could have any plant and any animal distributed anywhere. The answer clearly being common ancestry is posited on the belief that the answer is common ancestry. Dr.Scott, however, signifies with the word "better" that special creation is a possible answer because he has merely implied it is not as good an answer as common ancestry.



That's what they are supposed to do if we pay them to continue to develop the science of biogeography and thus confirming, refining, and extending Darwin's conclusions.

And here is another circularity--



Which is only true if you have on Ignore any other motives energising those activities.

It's the same all the way through wande. It's void of meaning. It has assumed its own premiss and the rest follows automatically. It represents tip-toeing around religion rather than attacking it head on.

I like "congealing" Wiz. I used "coalesce in a soggy mass" once somewhere but I think "congealing" much more poetic.

I am glad you think Dr. Scott is a "he". Otherwise your response to her arguments may have been more negative.

I'm sorry about that wande. I take it all back. It is normal for educated women to express themselves in that manner. It is only abnormal to take it seriously.

The NSF, I have to state, has created a very impressive interactive site for evolution:

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/darwin/home.jsp

I just checked it out. Its really good as an education tool. Im really impressed by NSF in this one.

I'm just waiting to see how spendi will try to discredit it.

You're having us on effemm. It's just a bunch of trite assertions declaimed with minimilist gravitas.

I presume students get marks for regurgitating the stuff in exam papers.

It's anti-science. It's show business without the sex.

It discredits itself ci. It needs no help from me.

spendi, You do what most people do when they can't challenge facts; attack the facts presented without so much as why the facts are wrong.

Does your "friends" at the pub allow you to bullshit like this to them? Maybe, only the women, heh? LOL

It doesn't matter -- I've linked to it on my Facebook and am networking it now. If one reveals their unreasonable fear with their little faceless, and baseless, barb -- it will only prove further the fact that the clueless are still frightened by randomness. It fortifies the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

But that would mean spendi "has a little knowledge." I refute that claim!

I watched the video ci. There were no facts to challenge. Name me one that is not posited on the belief it expresses or is anything we haven't heard hundreds of times before. The medium is the message.

My circle in the pub is avoided precisely because we don't bullshit. It started when I mentioned the ironic hard-on. We have nothing to sell.

Some are still lacking in computer skills to be able to figure out how to used the site other than the video. So the "little knowledge" is in the video for them to feed on like a vampire sucking on a gnat.

Maybe hes just annoyed that a significant number of the scientists interviewed are women. Spendis world is a lonely place and is filled with his own hollow sounding crap.

Ill bet that when he shows up at his neighboirhood suds place, everybody avoids him like H1N1

Yes, that would be a huge turn-off for our resident mysoginist. I don't believe he got past the first few interviews before feeling the impact of those women scientists who are 1,000 times more intelligent than he is -- he must have escaped to the pub in his Halloween costume, a troll disguised as a troll.

I think he is dressed as a large lemon scone covered in schmaltz

By now he could well be the face on the barroom floor.