Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Probably right -- it would be a present day wanna-be Marquis' screeds that would be described as venomous.

What's up with that from an evolutionary point of view Wiz? Isn't a spider ruthlessly taking advantage of the ignorance of insects?

Surely evolution theory promotion is promoting more of that sort of thing. One can hardly be an evolutionist and sticking up for the meek at the same time. At dfferent times maybe. Christianity might be seen as the antidote to evolutionary processes which don't lead to civilised cultures.

Have you had a bad experience with an "art" consultant. I could have told you to keep clear of them.

My reference was to all the pop journalism that followed the Tiktaalik article in SCIENCE and NATURE. Even those two journals have ed committees made up of various volunteers who alway "like" to feature their own specialties in some newsbreaking article. AND, articles by the scientists in tghese two journals are always edited "for content" . The definitive article on the Polak tetrapod will be in Paleo, or GSA, or SED STRAT, or PALEOECOLOGY, and I bet itll take several more months or even a year to clear the article so it answers all the questions that it now presents.

I know that Ted Daeschler is a term editor on Paleo, so he will want to "nail" down what the foot print actually represents.

I disagree largely with that. The many creationist "scientists" do have actual credentials. Even the geologists who stand as really good voluble spokesmen in favor of Creation "science". One guy I know has his PhD in mineralogy from HArvard and did a post doc at Stanford and is a raging Creationist spokesman who's always on the stump in favor of his worldview.

These guys ARE NOT ignorant. On the contrary, they represent one of the biggest frauds out there. They try to factually take and twist the evidence of science to support their "Poofistic" world. Its really sad but some of the best hucksterism is represented by these Creation "scientists". NOw, of course , there are many real douche bags with degrees from butt-lick school of Typing and Technology. None of those guys are called to argue any ophisticated points of science. Ill bet the trilobite guy has his degree in dentistry or in electrical engineering. (I didnt look him up YET).

You're wobbling like a jelly on a vibrating table, fm, in an earthquake that hasn't cut the mains electicity off yet.

The biggest laugh is that the Goddess Nature does not give two fucks about education and you lot want to teach evolution in a formal educational setting.

You're off your heads.

Thats because you operate from behind the looking glass. On this side, we say what we mean and dont make believe that were all Mr Blooms.

Wanna bet on the Alabama texas game?

And you have your head fit snugly up your rectal orifice.

There is no such thing as a "goddess nature," and it's not about education. Two fucks is pretty good depending on the time that's elapsed between the first and second.

I perhaps wasn't clear that this was exclusively a response to the Creationist blogger which the post referenced, not the "learned" professionals who are passing on their delusion based on very little that they learned in classes or any real discoveries, but what tricky semantic technique they can conjure up to color-it-up as a Creationist science, or an ID science, or what's next? IDEAS science -- Intelligent Designer Educator Anonymous Society.

Okay--I'll have Alabama. Stakes --a post of praise.

no, I meant nxt year.

I figgered that the argument wasnt too "learned" , however, the guys at ICR, like STeve Austen, who is a really sharp geologist, will present these really great arguments against an old earth by starting with several good arguments against isotopic decay rates and what occurs in crystals. The argumenst, while interesting and scholarly, are short lived because someone will actually go out and measure the field data and come back with data that supports the "Old Earth" argument. Then Steve will shut up for a few months until he comes back with another really great argument.

Its always something with those Creationist guys. If theyd spend time doing real research, they could actually contribute. Instead they have their heads (also) wedged snugly up their anal orifii that they acnnot detect the sunlight of knowledge.

Maybe they prefer illusions that work over truthful reality that doesn't. You are just sorting through truthful reality and picking out bits that suit your purposes like a lady might do with a luxurious buffet.

The "sunlight of knowledge", which sounds very nice if one approaches it with a casual air, has aspects to it, more than a few, that you will have a great deal of difficulty selling to the population. It certainly isn't some wisdom you have discovered for yourself and which you are eager for us all to know about.

Hows the weather up there in your cloaca?

Responsive to the thermostat as usual.

Cloudy with a chance of rain -- he's got a thousand microbes up there ready to become American football gamblers.

He likes American Fooball because its more cerebral than soccer. Its a huge chess game played by several layers of management all in or out of synch. Soccer is just basketball where defense rather than points is celebrated. Soccer is certainly boring enough.

I was watching an episode of "how do they do it" on Discovery. They were making Cricket paddles. The manufacture of the paddle was more interesting than the game itself. I can understand why the Brits so love their gin, and would, while languishing over thir empire, all get really hammered at cricket matches.
They invented tailgating

I have excepts from an interesting article on the influence Texas has on school textbooks.

The article will be at the top of the next page.