Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@farmerman,

Quote:

However, I( must say that your past post was an answer to aquestion that wasnt even asked.

What's that supposed to mean? What do stories about arks and soundbites about elementary shipbuilding have to do with these matters? When you engaged in that drivel I didn't start wittering and whining about it.

My post was directly on topic. The only challenge to the teaching of evolution worth discussing is a sociological/ psychological one. Scientific considerations are irrelevant. They assume a scientifically educated population and only a complete idiot would delude himself that we are anywhere remotely near to that.

We all know that you want a committee of eminent scientists running the show and we also know what a complete shambles that would cause. Every teacher and every education bureaucrat would have to be vetted and approved by such a committee on the basis of scientific correctness.

Quote:

Why bother to try to sound "scientific" when your very premises are faulty.

You are incurable. Another vacuous assertion. What premises? Why are they faulty? We don't want a committee of scientists operating by those infantile methods. What follows "your very premises are faulty" is "take him out and shoot him" or "take him to the re-education facility". Obviously.

Piss off you silly moo.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I knew somehow that youd bring it up. As you recall, I apologized (on that other thread) to the threads author when set and I took the diversionary route. You, however dont seem to be burdened by any politeness. Youve been barging your POV , counter to whatever thread is being discussed.
Howver, I am gratified that youve at least decided that you were off topic by your own direction.

Illet wandel know that you have , at least apologized.

We have another "Creation Fest" that will be going on all over LAncaster County this summer. Its single purpose is the renewal of our Christian Culture in all aspects of life and government. I think my jiob is to remind the Creationfesters that this country wasnt built to recognize the religious needs of one small vocal minority. Its amazing that, the Catholic Diocesan schools require the parents to pay hefty tuitions for a Catholic education (the parents also pay their normal school taxes), and this education, with the exception of religion classes and rules of conduct, contains a beefed up version of all science programs that the public schools offer, with the exception that the Diocesan schools have a serious commitment to really great science teaching. The CAtholics have it bith ways.
Now, if the Church can only stop people from leaving the religion so that they wont have to shut down these really gret schools, maybe the Evangelical morons will see how they can serve God and "Mammin" at the same tyme.
In the US, the CAtholics are a living example of your posts point. NOBODY has any argument with them, they do it right. SOme of the best "magnet schools" in scinces are Catholic schools.

So, your point, while taken and actually in practice here in the US, is totally outside the scope of this discussion.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Well Anus, merely look at the Title of this thread.

Well Gomer, I did merely look at the Title of this thread. According to you there is no problem teaching anything as factual even before it is discussed . It is an assumption on your part that any challenge to TEACHING something can not be countered by supporting what is taught as factual.

Quote:

Science is alays busy trying to unseat Darwin its a fact.

Of course trying to "unseat Darwin" as you put it is relevant to its teaching. How do you expect knowledge to be taught without mentioning areas needing further examination and criticism ?

Quote:

However, thats not a point for discussion herein

You want we should go back to boat building ?

Quote:

We guard our freedom of(and from) religion very carefully and we are (mostly) sensitive to the full content of the first AMendment of Our Constitution.

So much so that everyone was shocked when JFK was voted in as a Catholic because no-one ever thought a Protestant country would stoop so low, and most Presidents have declared their religion as a badge of office, with lately it seems they wouldnt be elected without religion. How much discussion involves the High Court and religious principles in your country ? You lot have failed miserably to keep religion and political office seperate. If you had of been more successful this topic wouldnt exist.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

According to you there is no problem teaching anything as factual even before it is discussed . It is an assumption on your part that any challenge to TEACHING something can not be countered by supporting what is taught as factual.

You are a bit of a lost cause. The subjects in science are open to discussion, rebuttal, and testing. Thats the fun part. Tell me how religion can even enter the dialogue? You mean that you think religious teaching is not FAITH based? wheres the evidence Anus?

Quote:

How do you expect knowledge to be taught without mentioning areas needing further examination and criticism ?

Lest all take time from our busy teaching schedules and discuss krakons and Bigfoots, and Ika STones, and Atlantis also. You need to have a greater grip on reality ANus

Quote:

How much discussion involves the High Court and religious principles in your country ? You lot have failed miserably to keep religion and political office seperate. If you had of been more successful this topic wouldnt exist.

Our Constitution is supposed to be a living sdocument. If you werent so dumb youd see that most of what was included in the Bill of Rights hadnt even been concieved of by the framers. So, our ongoing discussions ARE what youd expect as the Constitution is being interpreted for our times. Would you rather we set our watches back 200 years?
You apparently were beneath my intended ceiling of focus when I mentioned the US Catholic Schools as an example of great education with a secular twist to science while still in a parochial structure.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Where was I?? My premises were faulty. I covered that. So has Io.

But here we go again--

Quote:

Youre still bringing religion into our science programs and we wont put up with it.

Which science programmes? Religion is a key aspect in some sciences. You're defining science and we all know how you define things. And you'll put up with whatever the political process delivers and it won't be atheism.

Quote:

You dont seem to get the point. WHile you may think your argument is valid, its irrelevant (which is how we like to keep it)

You don't get the point. What's the point in a debate of you saying that I don't seem to get the point? What's the point of saying that my argument is irrelevant. Am I not entitled, as a debater, to decide what I think the point is and what is or is not irrelevant? And are not viewers here entitled to decide for themselves what is a valid point and what is relevant? I'm entitled to conduct the argument against atheistic education any way I see fit and I'm content to let viewers decide its value. You just want us to play in your backyard with your rules. I hope some viewers can make their minds up about that. And that it gives them an idea of what to expect if you lot ever come to power.

And again--

Quote:

You seem to want to do a 180 wrt your previous posts wherein youve been arguing (unsuccessfully may I add) what "REAL: ID " is.

Just another blurt. Show me. I support ID in the same way I support women covering up their interesting bits in public. Because I can see the usefulness of it. I haven't a ******* clue whether there's an intelligent designer or not. I think things work better when most people believe something in that line so obviously I think people should be encouraged, persuaded or even made to believe it and that those who object should be shunted out of the way. By any method within reach. That's the point.

That's why you refuse to discuss the social consequence of mass atheism. And you can hardly be arguing for anything else. Unless you're a trimmer. Then you're lost.

What's the scientific position on women covering up their interesting bits in public? You don't get that in evolution. In evolution, periodically, it is quite the opposite. I saw a film recently of two buffaloes crunching their foreheads together at a combined speed of about 60 mph and everytime they did so the watching females' tails stood vertical in a split second. Was it J.G. Frazer who cracked the joke about the blue-bottomed monkey and had all the fans causing RSI in delicate wrists?

Quote:

Actually if you would go and resurrect Wandels previous thread "ID, science or religion" perhaps your last post would fit there nicely..

I'll decide where I think my posts are best placed.

And again--

Quote:

Whats above this clip is pretty much irrelevant and self congratulatory and DEAD WRONG.

Can't you see yet that that means nothing? It's just more wind and piss.

Quote:

SCience is never done "from authority"

Whenever we see a science programme or a scientist pontificating there are always the distinct signs of as many trappings of authority as they dare surround themselves with. And edit cuts galore. I've seen some fantastic tricks with models and computer images. Our chief scientists called press conferences to announce that we were all going to get Mad Cow disease and Bird Flu and Aids and half of us would be dead before the Christmas turkeys were. (Is it alright to mention Christmas?)

Quote:

science is the complete utterance of Spencer and Darwin.

I presume Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) is meant. Known as the "father of sociology". He is reported to have said that reading books he didn't agree with gave him headaches. Just like you fm eh? He was much more popular in America than in Europe probably due to the simplicity. Prof Ruse said that his esteem had tanked by 1900 to previously unfathomed depths and that he is only remembered today for his enthusiasm for extreme laissez-faire economics and Social Darwinism and also that he is the "classic exemplar of the naturalistic fallacy" as he vainly tried to derive morality from evolutionary determinants and thus being popular with extremists of both ends of the political spectrum. Workhouses, eugenics, unequal distribution of wealth and it wouldn't surprise me if euthenasia was on his list.

Quote:

Actually, its religion that accepts on authority. I believe that defines "Faith", cause you cant falsify, evaluate, repeat, test , or collect evidence for it

Obviously.

Quote:

Im sorry, Im having too much fun deriving retardation kinetics to even give a rats ass about "what results you can contrive" And I do mean "contrive"

I think I said "we can contrive". The collective. Are you not in favour of us contriving the future? The dispute is about how we do it.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Religion is a key aspect in some sciences.

Besides "the History of SCience" name

Quote:

I'll decide where I think my posts are best placed.

Well, theres yer problem , Noone has ever accused you of "thinking"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Besides "the History of SCience" name

Anthropology, archeology, sociology, psychology, history, eugenics, structural engineering, lingerie research and court jesting.

And that's without thinking much.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Quote:
According to you there is no problem teaching anything as factual even before it is discussed . It is an assumption on your part that any challenge to TEACHING something can not be countered by supporting what is taught as factual.

You are a bit of a lost cause. The subjects in science are open to discussion, rebuttal, and testing. Thats the fun part. Tell me how religion can even enter the dialogue? You mean that you think religious teaching is not FAITH based? wheres the evidence Anus?

Perhaps if I reword it so you dont have to think to hard...You have assumed that any challenge to TEACHING something excludes any debate about the facts being taught...now do you get it or shall we keep trying to explain it to you ? Why did you bring religion into it ? As usual you dont or cant read....but seeing you wanted to introduce religion again, I have already explained the complexity behind religion....catering just for your inability to read, AGAIN...psychology, etimiology, history, sociology and many others are ALL involved in religion. Ask if you dont understand, Gomer.

Quote:

Quote:
How do you expect knowledge to be taught without mentioning areas needing further examination and criticism ?

Lest all take time from our busy teaching schedules and discuss krakons and Bigfoots, and Ika STones, and Atlantis also. You need to have a greater grip on reality ANus

I bet you are a vindictive little bastard when it comes to teaching.....you even tried to take me to task over the "latest and greatest" theories. Students need to know what is on shaky ground and your opinion is worthless....oh I know you are a self proclaimed expert but what have you published, you naughty little boy you....

Quote:

Quote:
How much discussion involves the High Court and religious principles in your country ? You lot have failed miserably to keep religion and political office seperate. If you had of been more successful this topic wouldnt exist.
Our Constitution is supposed to be a living sdocument. If you werent so dumb youd see that most of what was included in the Bill of Rights hadnt even been concieved of by the framers. So, our ongoing discussions ARE what youd expect as the Constitution is being interpreted for our times.

Interpretations like equality doesnt mean niggers, and politicians are allowed to loudly proclaim and advertise religion for more votes....yeah, good job of interpreting.

Quote:

Would you rather we set our watches back 200 years?

So to avoid armour piercing cyanide tipped cop killing weapons being downgraded to muskets , you think you are interpreting the constitution. I wouldnt trust you to read a phone book without putting spin on it.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

now do you get it or shall we keep trying to explain it to you ? Why did you bring religion into it ? As usual you dont or cant read....but seeing you wanted to introduce religion again, I have already explained the complexity behind religion....catering just for your inability to read, AGAIN...psychology, etimiology, history, sociology and many others are ALL involved in religion. Ask if you dont understand, Gomer.

Not only are you defiantly ignorant, you are also senile. YOU BROUGHT UP ALL THE discussions re: religion.
Clown. Are you drunk now? You arent even making sense . It appears that You are arguing with yourself not me. If you are so angry and have problems with me. IGNORE ME DOUCHE BAG!!. Im not going to carry on one of those several page fests that you engaged in several pages back, when one pister tried to set you correct and you sunk to nothing more than sexual epithets. You are simply not worth my time.

When I tried toexplain something about the TRex and DNA, you sent me a bootlicking PM full of base covering self deprecating statements that I felt sorry that maybe I was just being harsh. In actuality youre just some kind of a silly sightseer in a technical world. You try to absolve yourself of any responsibilities for your own ignorance by calling me a "self proclaimed expert" I do what I do and if you dont like it, dont act like you understand what Im saying. Ive tried several times to engage you and explain where you were wrong. Each time, like a puppy dog whose not the center of attention you lashed back at me and tried (unsuccessfully I might add) to pull your stupid cases out of the muck. Then, all civility seems to leave you and it becomes a time wasting shout fest with your testosterone spraying all over the place.
Its not only me youve done that to, its almost everyone who even responds to you. Maybe thats my lesson, dont believe that youre here for intelligent discussion, you ponly want to play video games and spread hate and .

My only response to your last vacuous posts is
IF YOU WISH to discuss the US's form of \government an d how we interpret and re-interpret our Constitution, do some more reading. Im not an expert on the Constitution but I can see from your statements that you and spendi both are still at a sub elementary level of understanding (if indeed understanding is the word to describe the mutual rantings of you two). Further, you dont really want to discuss things like an adult, you just want to engage in useless prattle and silly attempts at baseless verbal self aggrandizement.

Im not gonna play in your sand box anymore. See if you can find someone else who gives a **** about your opinions and is willing to listen to your sick abuse.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Not only are you defiantly ignorant, you are also senile. YOU BROUGHT UP ALL THE discussions re: religion.
Clown.

(slaps forehead - why do I bother) You declared Spendi's post here to be baseless....... Post:# 3,982,494 ...any of this coming back ? You seem to have a flashback to somewhere else, perhaps several posts ago....I think it is pathetic that you think you are keeping up.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I put the jerk on ignore long ago.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

I think it is pathetic that you think you are keeping up.

Ion and spendi have shown it is possible to stack crap SO HIGH, that even the mighty farmerman cant be fucked ascending it, nor anyone else for that matter...

Who knows ya might suck in a lowly straggler...

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Well, I guess I will. No sense just beating my head agin the wall with his lying and duplicitous bullshit and claims about what others say.

Im a slow learner I guess.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

I put the jerk on ignore long ago.

And ED...I want to thank you for that...you are not the brighest star in the sky and your ability to contribute is simply as a cheer squad.

0 Replies

@Xenoche,

Do you have an opinion on the subject or are you totally clueless ? Silly question I know, but I would like to know what you think you are doing...

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

No sense just beating my head agin the wall with his lying and duplicitous bullshit and claims about what others say.

You arent up to this...your ability to read and comprehend means you think others are at fault if your post goes way of the point being discussed. Perhaps oh-mighty-indentifier-of-rocks-one-out-of-three-times, you might want to prove I am lying or someone might think you are a little idiot insulting people because you can no longer carry a debate without bitterness that someone has the gall to disagree with the mighty you ! You said I am a liar, now prove it ! Or **** up.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

There is a well known explanation for a lot of this stuff fm.

It comes about that it arrives in a man's life when time and experience awakens him from the dream in which his earlier years have been crowned with inward glory. Many men come to laugh contemptuously at the memory of the illusion and are content to allow it to fade away into oblivion and set their stall out in pursuit of lost time and the main chance. An education at the hands of Jesuitical priests and what are known in polite circles as non-commissioned officers usually suffices to provide the onset of this happy circumstance at an early age. The principle objective of such an education is to neutralise the parental influence which has created the dream and particularly that of the maternal side which is generally dedicated to the illusion from the very beginning of life in the service of flattering the genetic material from which the life has been sprung by a process which is too well known to need further explanations.

But many more men are denied these advantages and cannot forgive or face up to the loss of the dream of inward glory. They resort to exterior presentations which are designed to keep the dream going when the sheer facts contradict it at every turn. A fantastic array of business ventures are conducted to supply the necessities required to acheive the objective which get more and more ridiculous the more the contradictions exert themselves as time and indulgence take their toll. In the most desperate cases the blessings associated with the natural decline of virility are denied and resort is had to Viagra which is not all that much unlike jumping back into a pit of poisonous snakes after evolutionary processes have facilitated one's escape from it with only a few scars.

This inevitably leads to the ghost of the dying illusions of inward glory haunting them and chasing them into every nook and cranny with an increasingly embittering presence from when the first signs of the rot setting in at about 33 to the very end of their days and even beyond if they leave instructions for certain musical compositions to be played at their funerals and symbols of their machismotic glory to be laid upon the coffin or erected around it.

The leisure activities of successful bankers are the most easily seen manifestations of the maintenance of the illusion and supply the motive power of the energy needed for such an exacting profession. Such a principle holds good further down the social hierarchy and these days, with Media's baleful influence, reaches down to a position asymptoting with the bottom below which there is little to be said which isn't to be found in Darwin's masterpiece.

Naturally, the methods of maintaining the illusion of inward glory will be held in high regard by each individual choosing them and the methods of others will be denigrated and scoffed at.

1 Reply

@spendius,

life is a straggle

1 Reply

@oolongteasup,

Quote:

life is a straggle

You mean like a straggle of geese ??? Confused

0 Replies

Quote:

Alabama Gov. Candidate Attacked for Belief in Evolution
(Brian Montopoli, CBSnews.com, May 11, 2010)

In an ad released earlier this month, which you can watch at left, Alabama gubernatorial candidate Bradley Byrne is attacked for suggesting that evolution, as opposed to creationism, "best explains the origin of life."

The spot, from a shadowy group called the "True Republican PAC," also criticizes Byrne for suggesting the Bible is "only partially true."

Byrne, a former Democrat, is one of a number of candidates for the Republican nomination, and his opponents include "ten commandments judge" Roy Moore and Tim James, who last month released an ad in which he said, "We speak English. If you want to live here, learn it."

In a response, Byrne said the ad was filled with "despicable lies" - and insisted he is no opponent of creationism.

"As a Christian and as a public servant, I have never wavered in my belief that this world and everything in it is a masterpiece created by the hands of God," he said. "As a member of the Alabama Board of Education, the record clearly shows that I fought to ensure the teaching of creationism in our school text books. Those who attack me have distorted, twisted and misrepresented my comments and are spewing utter lies to the people of this state."

He also said that, contrary to the ad's claims, he believes "every single word" of the Bible is true.

1 Reply

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know