61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 05:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Explain what you mean there CI, cause youre getting real close to coming up with a "design" element
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 05:44 pm
@farmerman,
Well, as you well probably know, christians were told that man was made in the image of god. You don't have to use too much imagination to figure that out when most living species sex organs are similar (male and female).

Now, all that the creationists have to do is show us god's sex organs, or show us how the living species on earth were god's creation.

I want first hand evidence. LOL
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 05:52 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Id love to make their argument as a"competing theory"


But "their argument" is not on this thread fm. Mine is. And you don't have to have seen a photo of Einstein's cat to know that you are woffling again and, it can easily be said, trolling.

Anybody can make snideys about people who are not here to answer back.

Answer my post and behave like a civilised gent.

It's your problem that you can't discuss the social consequences of the policies you advocate. All utopians are the same in that respect. Hence the cheapskate diversionary tactics.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 06:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
When we observe the sex practices of most living species, it seems quite clear that nature's design were pretty consistent.


It's a good job you used "most" ci. Humans are exceptions in that the intelligent ones stick to the missionary position whereas "most" species do the doggie and often without asking for permission or attempting to make it "nice for you".

Are recommending that the adolescents in the schools you seek to influence be taught follow "nature's design"?

Are you off your head?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 06:14 pm
@farmerman,
If I may pick your brains fm, could you, from your superior knowledge of biology, tell us which species have a female with a clitoris and erogenous zones which are linked to it by pathways which conduct electrical impulses and financial readjustments symbolised by glittering light and movement such as is readily observable in restaurants, pubs and shopping malls of the better sort.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 06:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Unfortunately not all animals have or use "genitalia" as sex organs. Your still providing me only with a simple response which is "See, pretty good design no?"

I think that you would be easily talked into a circle with the "sex organ" story especially iof you invoke "Gods weenie"
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 06:22 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Are recommending that the adolescents in the schools you seek to influence be taught follow "nature's design"?


I'll say that again. The milk was boiling over when I wrote it.

Are you recommending that the adolescents in the schools you seek to influence be taught to follow "nature's design"?

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 09:47 pm
@farmerman,
How about "the majority of living things?"

A "pretty good design" since it works pretty well through the evolution of life. The sex urge seems predominant.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 05:26 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Unfortunately not all animals have or use "genitalia" as sex organs.


We are discussing schools fm rather than zoos, circuses or the forests and plains of the wilderness.

"Unfortunately" is a very strange usage in view of your claim to scientific objectivity. I'm at a loss wondering what natural occurences are "unfortunate".
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 05:29 am
@spendius,
And the same perplexity exists in relation to "pretty good design" and " works pretty well".
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 05:58 am
@cicerone imposter,
All Im doing is trying to cobble up an argument that could be fleshed out by the IDers in order to skate around the Aguillard decisions loophole that was left in with the Supreme Courts decision. If I have some time today, Ill go and try to find the majority opinion and the minority opinion. I want to see in which context the "valid alternative theories" were left in.
What constitutes valid, what are the standards of testing, etc.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 07:57 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987 regarding creationism. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools along with evolution was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, however, it held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."


As there is not the slightest sign of any scientific principles being involved in your contributions fm, and I cite your failure, once again, to answer the points I have raised, and your constant use of insults as arguments, I cannot see what role you might have in enhancing the "the effectiveness of science instruction" in schools and thus your interest in the USSC case to which you refer is inexplicable.

Your idea of effective science teaching is obviously to ignore any questions you wish ignore and insult, in a startlingly crude fashion, anybody who dares to ask them. In other words your idea of science teaching is what you choose it to be at any one time which allows any variations you deem necessary at any other time.

As a materialist you have no choice but to admit that the belief in a divine origin is a material object in as many brains that hold the belief and, as such, they are objects that are a part of the material world and thus within the area of scientific study.

To reject that means that you are not a materialist at all but simply someone rowing his boat ashore and that is the very last thing of use in enhancing the effectiveness of science teaching however effective it might be at promoting your personal agenda.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 01:52 pm
@farmerman,
Associate Justice Brennan, in writing the opinion for the majority had this,more expanded, statement about other theories.
Quote:
"... We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction..."


It seems that the second part of that statement had been already tried when Creationisms bastard child , Intelligent Design, was done in at the "Kitzmiller v. Dover" case. However, the first part has still not been dismissed and is , by Justice Brennan hisself, allowable in schools. The old "Theory of Sudden Appearance" had only been dismissed because the original spokesmen were claiming a realatively young earth. HOWEVER, if these same folks would modify their own assertions and would accept the OE model, they could stymie school science programs by running straight evidence through their own worldview "filter"

.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 02:48 pm
@farmerman,
As I understand it Aristotle was the first "sudden appearence" proponent. And he was neither a young earther nor an old earther. He was an eternalist.

The form is not the same as the material constituents. The 26 letters of the alphabet can be arranged in an infinite number of forms. Or as near as makes no difference.

If matter/energy is eternal then the constituents are eternal and it is only the form which is subject to change. And nature may design many forms.

Your argument might be said to be in the service of saving the biologist's classification. Their business plan.

Biology began with Aristotle's Historia Animalium and Darwin was accused of trying to airbrush him out of the picture in order the glorify himself.

But that's not my position. My position is sociological and psychological and I know you don't recognise either as science in order to glorify biology.

The first sentence of the quote is a version of "never say never" and the second is balanced on the word "might" and some unspecified interpretation of the phrase "enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction" which I gather has not yet been agreed and can never be biologically. The phrase only has meaning from a sociological and psychological point of view without the use of force.

The insults of anti-IDers are a form of attempted force. Ignore is sulking.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 06:06 pm
@spendius,
spendi wrote:
Quote:
The insults of anti-IDers are a form of attempted force. Ignore is sulking.


spendi, Science "never" needs force to make their case; they're all self-explanatory for folks who can see daylight during the day and stars/moon at night. It's that simple.

Ignoring is for pro-IDiots who can dream up all sorts of different ways to explain one phenomenon; life on planet earth.

The only force being applied are from IDiots who want to force our children to learn about creation along with evolution; creation is not science; it's hokus pokus. POOF!
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 06:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
It's that simple.


Hence its popularity with simpletons.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 09:25 pm
@spendius,
True; most facts are simple to comprehend. IDiots try to make them difficult to understand, because they're confused.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 06:12 am
Quote:
Teacher With Bible Divides Ohio Town
(By IAN URBINA, The New York Times, January 20, 2010)

MOUNT VERNON, Ohio " Most people in this quiet all-American town describe themselves as devoutly Christian, but even here they are deeply divided over what should happen to John Freshwater.

Mr. Freshwater, an eighth-grade public school science teacher, is accused of burning a cross onto the arms of at least two students and teaching creationism, charges he says have been fabricated because he refused an order by his principal to remove a Bible from his desk.

After an investigation, school officials notified Mr. Freshwater in June 2008 of their intent to fire him, but he asked for a pre-termination hearing, which has lasted more than a year and cost the school board more than a half-million dollars.

The hearing is finally scheduled to end Friday, and a verdict on Mr. Freshwater’s fate is expected some months later. But the town " home to about 15,000 people, more than 30 churches and an evangelical university " remains split.

To some, Mr. Freshwater is a hero unfairly punished for standing up for his Christian beliefs. To others, he is a zealot who pushed those beliefs onto students.

“Freshwater’s supporters want to make this into a new and reverse version of the Scopes trial,” said David Millstone, the lawyer for the Mount Vernon Board of Education, referring to the Tennessee teacher tried in 1925 for teaching evolution. “We see this as a basic issue about students having a constitutional right to be free from religious indoctrination in the public schools.”

Mr. Freshwater, who declined to be interviewed, has said he did not mean to burn a cross on any student’s arm. Instead, he said he intended to leave a temporary X on the skin using a device called a Tesla coil during a science demonstration. He says he had done that, with no complaints, hundreds of times in his 21 years as a teacher at Mount Vernon Middle School.

In a radio interview in 2008, he said he had been a target for removal since 2003, when he proposed that the school board adopt a policy to teach evolution as theory, not proven scientific fact. “I ruffled some feathers,” he said.

Married and a father of three, Mr. Freshwater, 53, was popular among students, always willing to stay after school to tutor or listen to students who needed someone to talk to.

In testimony at the board hearing, his supporters said he had consistently received positive evaluations from superiors and won distinguished teacher awards at least twice.

But school officials and former colleagues presented a different picture.

One high school teacher said she consistently had to reteach evolution to Mr. Freshwater’s students because they did not master the basics. Another testified that Mr. Freshwater told his students they should not always take science as fact, citing as an example a study that posited the possibility of a gene for homosexuality.

“Science is wrong,” Mr. Freshwater was reported as saying, “because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin, and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and is therefore a sinner.”

A third teacher testified that Mr. Freshwater advised students to refer to the Bible for additional science research.

School officials said Mr. Freshwater’s science classroom was adorned with at least four copies of the Ten Commandments and several other posters that included verses from Scripture.

Mount Vernon is not a place accustomed to controversy and news media attention. It is proud of its wholesomeness. Wooden porches are adorned with American flags. A Civil War hero sits atop a tall obelisk in the center of the impeccably preserved town square. Tour guides brag about the Woodward Opera House, which is billed as the oldest freestanding opera theater in the country.

“The whole issue has been an embarrassment,” Ann Schnormeier said as she sat with 10 other women at a religious study meeting at First Congregational United Church of Christ near the center of town. She said her grandson, like many students, adored Mr. Freshwater.

“People have faith here in this town,” she said, “but Mr. Freshwater was crossing the line, and the school board has rules. There are laws, and he needs to leave his teaching position.”

Mr. Freshwater, who is currently suspended without pay, does not see things that way.

Last June, he filed a federal lawsuit against the school board seeking $1 million in damages, and in April 2008, he called a news conference at the town square to say that while he was willing to remove posters and other religious materials from his classroom " as instructed by the school board " he was drawing the line on removing his Bible.

The reaction was immediate.

Students held a “bring your Bible to school” day. Others started wearing T-shirts with “I support Mr. Freshwater " God” on the front. As the case dragged on, producing more than 5,000 pages of transcripts and more than 30 days of oral testimony, some Freshwater supporters vowed to broaden the fight.

Callers to local talk radio said that if Mr. Freshwater lost his job, they would look for indiscretions by other teachers and lobby for their removal.

Among those attending school board meetings were members of a local group called the Minutemen.

“This case woke a lot of people up around here,” said Dave Daubenmire, the founder of the group, which he named Minutemen because they “are a group of Christian guys who will show up on a minute’s notice to peacefully show support for their faith.”

In town, pastors are divided.

“I support Freshwater as a man of faith, but he is not supposed to be conveying these views in school,” said the Rev. R. Keith Stuart, pastor of First Congregational United Church of Christ.

Miles away, Mr. Freshwater’s pastor, Don Matolyak, posited that the criticism of Mr. Freshwater was part of a larger trend toward bigotry against Christians.

“If he had a Koran on his desk, he’d be fine and no one would say a word to him,” Mr. Matolyak said. “If he had ‘Origin of Species’ on his desk, they would celebrate that.”

The family of Zachary Dennis, one of the two students who say they were branded by Mr. Freshwater, said they were eager for the matter to be closed. “We are religious people,” Jennifer Dennis, Zachary’s mother, said in an interview. “But we were offended when Mr. Freshwater burned a cross onto the arm of our child.”

After teachers and students criticized Zachary for speaking up, she said, the family sold its house and moved.

“We are Christians,” she said, “who practice our faith where it belongs, at church and in our home and, most importantly, outside the public classroom, where the law requires a separation of church and state.”
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 07:58 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
True; most facts are simple to comprehend. IDiots try to make them difficult to understand, because they're confused.


Not true. IDiots don't deal in facts because society can't be efficiently organised on facts. They deal with human behaviour in social systems and that is confusing.

The Steelers won last year's Superbowl. That's a fact. How it was done is confusing. It is a fact that the US plays that sort of football. Why that is is confusing. I've seen theories about both.

Facts deal with the past. The "become". The set fast. IDiots deal with the "becoming".

If you will take the trouble to read Spenglers Chapter XI-Nature-Knowledge, you will get the general drift. I can't reproduce it here for obvious reasons but I will quote a few bits-

Quote:
Everything exact is in itself meaningless, and every physical observation is so constituted that it proves the basis of a certain number of imaged presuppositions; and the effect of its successful issue is to make these presuppositions more convincing than ever.


Quote:
Mere industrious measuring for measuring's sake is not and never has been more than a delight for little minds. Numbers may only be the key of the secret, no more. No significant man would ever have spent himself on them for their own sake.


Quote:
For what, after all, are the basic notions that have been evolved with inward certainty of logic in the field of our physics? Polarized light-rays, errant ions, flying and colliding gas particles, magnetic fields, electric currents and waves--are they not one and all Faustian visions, closely akin to Romanesque ornamentation, the upthrust of Gothic architecture, the Viking's voyaging into unknown seas, the longings of Columbus and Copernicus? Did not this world of forms and pictures grow up in perfect tune with the contemporary arts of perspective oil-painting and instrumental music? Are they not, in short, our passionate directedness, our passion of the third dimension, coming to symbolic expression in the imagined Nature-picture as in the soul image.


Quote:
It follows then that all "knowing" of Nature, even the exactest, is based on a religious faith.


0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 08:02 am
To attack Christianity is to attack our science in its foundation.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 07/06/2025 at 01:00:21