Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Which means, in English, either chuck them under the chin or stool pigeon them and be properly dressed and maintaining an outward demenour calculated to meet with the approval of the undecided citizenry.

There are a lot of other Top Ten lists I should think. There's the fastest sagger-maker's bottom knocker to begin at the all time Top Ten of Everything list.

Was totally unaware of #9 the ignition facility.

No triumphs without disappointments:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-letdowns-decade

Kubrick should have considered titling his film: 2101: A Space Odyssey

http://tamest.org/education/tamest_topten.pdf
Here is an assessment of Texas schools.

Figures.

It was even worse than I expected. I think it's the damned IDers.

It's the mentality of those insisting on ID/Creationist to be taught alongside evolution sciences in schools. It's the backward fundamentalism of the churches in Texas which, obviously, makes them backward in more ways than one. Cowboys don't want no schools?

Will you please quote someone Wiz who has insisted on ID/Creationist to be taught alongside evolution sciences in schools.

For those trying to play dumb (and probably are):
Top Ten evolution stories from API:

At number four is the report of the Texas Board of Education caving in to creationists, by amending the Biology and Earth and Space Sciences standards with loopholes and language that make it easy for creationists to attack science textbooks.

At number five is the state of Louisiana passing an act that opened the door to teaching the concept of creationism in public school science classes.

Weasle words.

Caving in to creationists is not, and I quote your own words, "insisting on ID/Creationist to be taught alongside evolution sciences in schools. And not by a long stretch.

And it is a fundamental tenet of the scientific method that science textbooks and science itself are constantly under attack.

And "opening the door" is also a long stretch from "insisting". In fact "opening the door" is more or less meaningless as is "caving in".

You were asked Wiz to provide a citation for somebody "insisting" that ID/creationism, whatever that might mean, be taught in school science classes alongside evolution, whatever that might mean.

You sophistry wouldn't get past an averagely intelligent person and hence it is obvious that you are addressing your idiotic remarks at the below averagely intelligent which is something I have known ever since you appeared on this thread.

Do us a favour will you please--treat us with a little respect.

We don't want people like you running schools and that is for sure.

spendi wrote:

What do you find wrong with this? Science has a way of correcting mistakes by the continued challenge of its findings. There are some theories of science that are well established through this very process of continued challenges. You use the word "attack" as if there is something wrong with corrections made from previous omissions or mistakes.

How do you challenge creationism? This is an area that "attack" is the correct word, because there is nothing in fact or evidence to prove creationism. Creationism is based on nothing more than "irreducible complexity." It ignores any concept of reality.

Treat who with what? You're never treated with respect as you do not deserve any respect -- the specificity was the Texas ongoing push to get Creationism/ID into the public schools and settled on the textbook ploy. This directly correlates with the poor educational system in Texas, another product of the same redneck fundamentalist fools of which PSXXX is obviously a part of.

Where youve missed the bus entirely is that the scientific method invites replacement of theories'By better theories" not eyewash. You are quick to recognize the scientific accuracy for nat selection yet seem to wish to defend the presence of ID as a "science". On What train did you arrive? the one that starts at Hogwarts?
Taking an indefensible side of an argument is laudable and often fun, but make sure you can back up your ridiculous points with other than false ascriptions.

I'm quite astounded fm that you have seen fit to take issue with my last post. Your prejudices are obviously stronger than any scientific principles you might indulge yourself thinking you passess.

I don't see much difference in the meaning of inviting replacement of a theory and inviting attacks upon it. If you want to suggest that there is a significant difference help yourself. It's your reputation that's on the line--not mine.

I have never defended ID as a science. I have defended the consequences of ID scientifically by simply pointing out that there are other sciences which look at matters from a different perspective from that of your limited horizons. Which is why you won't even recognise that you have been asked to explain the social consequences of universal atheism when that is exactly what you are asking us to embrace despite it being suspected of having myriads of stinging tentacles: if I may restrain my poetic imagination. Answering it is obviously out of the question.

What you have from ID/Creationism you can see with your eyes, hear with your ears, taste with your tongue, smell with your nostrils and feel in the rustle of some silky underwear got up in a sweatshop in Siam.

What you will get with universal atheism you will also be able to appreciate on your senses but many think, and with good reason, that it will feel pretty bloody awful although I will admit that a degree of senselessness might be induced, as in your earlier "re-education programme", so that pretty bloody awful is as good as it gets and is thought normal and even gratefully acknowledged in outpourings of adoring joy on the occasion of the Leader's birfday--bless his little cotton socks.

spendi, There is no such thing as "prejudices" when it comes to science; science is self-correcting unlike your brain that stays stagnant.

Having to constantly repaint the footprints left by trying to escape from the corner of the room is a fool's job -- you leave even more footprints painting out the footprints, which is what PSXXX has been consistently doing on this forum. But he is consistent and "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

That's a classic ci-ism if ever there was one. The funniest yet maybe.

They should get you doing quips for the many minor goofballs who people the background to the stars in movies. If Peter Lorre had said that how we would laugh. I know we shouldn't but we can't help it.

I don't think that a scriptwriter could think anything like that up from cold which carries the burden of your meaning quite so succinctly.

For a bossy lady anti-ID promoter it would even funnier.

You see humour where there is none; there is no such thing as "ci-ism."

You might have grasped the meaning of my previous post if you understood science over creationism. Only creationists see humour.

All minds are "small minds". Otherwise great minds would be able to reduce irreducible complexity to easily enough understood sound bites for you lot to understand which they have so far signally failed to get anywhere near doing.

I'm glad I'm consistent. I'd rather be a hobgoblin than a pratt.

Your use of the term "other sciences" refutes all of your bullshit statement.(((((((YAAAAWWWWWWWN)))))))))))).

When you come up with anything original and even witty, lemme know by holding up the APPLAUSE sign.