Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

The article skirted my personal suspicions, making me able to endorse it.

Hehehehehehehehehe . . . good one, EB . . .

Denialism. The new "ism".

This is getting too witty for us Io. We are out of our depth.

It looks like being in favour of teaching evolution, besides having the convenience of not taking up too much time, is useful in honing that conversational expertise which when one finds oneself in proximity to in social gatherings creates that movement of the feet which can't be described on account of it being blurred, much like a circular saw blade in action, although fairly realistic imitations of it can be seen in Tom and Gerry and Roadrunner. It's efficiency can be improved by taking the precaution of wearing spiked running shoes for those events in which expectations are unknown.

If you are able to afford it, why not get some good editing help. Roberta is a professional and Ill bet she could do wonders with this crappy piece of run on gibberish. Where did you hone your writing skills, writing small print for loan contracts?
Does this piece of rubbish mean that you are against teaching evolution in biology? Otherwise it doesnt make any sense at all.


Are you hammered already? Youre bleating for ANUS. he dissapeared in a "huff" and is probably trying to extract his head from his orifice. (I believe he sleeps in the shape of a hoop )

It looks like being in favour of teaching creationism (ahem, Intelligent Design), besides having the convenience of not taking up too much time ('god did it' is short, sweet and to the point innit), is useful in honing that conversational expertise which when one finds oneself in proximity to in social gatherings creates that movement of the feet which can't be described on account of it being blurred, much like a circular saw blade in action, although fairly realistic imitations of it can be seen in Tom and Jerry and Roadrunner. It's efficiency can be improved by taking the precaution of wearing spiked running shoes for those events in which expectations are unknown.

Witty or what!

Im glad you corrected his Anglicized spelling of "Jerry"

Anglicized! I like that one.

Ionus:
You asked me why I don't contribute to this thread Ionus.
You call other posters out on being insulting, only to insult others yourself all the while spouting the same crap that's been de-bunked already, now you just have to find someone willing to dig through the fossil record of this ancient thread (and the one before it) to find answers you so obviously don't care about anyway.
Spendos has been slamming his head on his keyboard in response to these threads for so many years he's barely conscious.

There Ionus, mystery solved.

If we take out the non-original work here, we are left with "sleeps in the shape of a hoop"....I suppose Mister Ed will find that very funny but it cant be your best effort, can it ?

Your bluster and bluff are growing to new heights....why dont you leave the word smithing to Spendi, he is far better at it.

Apart from belligerant bludgeoning what do you propose to do about the problem of religion displacing science....you do remember the original problem dont you ? All I have seen from you so far is an attack on two people who arent fundamentalists and who see a place for religion and science.

If it is your aim to show the other side can make the same claim, then it achieves that....but I think you stole the idea and it is not witty. Maybe it is what.

Yes, anything that helps you must be good.

I have the right to reply in kind.

In your opinion.

Answers to what questions ?
What do you think is being debated here ?

I posted a lengthy post about the "culture wars" of the US because you in particular seemed quite uninformed about how this is unique to our Constitutional Republic.
Whether religion dicplaces science is a condition beyond our control. Our Supreme court, in a fit of Conservative Craziness, could reinterpret the 1std amendment to mean "No separation betwen church and state" because that belief is nowhere in the constitution and has only been interpreted as such. Jefferson is not very popular among these Conservatives and the recent decision in TExas to remove certain facts from their "history" could sweep across the nation in a frenzy. Theres no protection against that, only common sense has prevailed to date and, as I said waaay back, we were a nation that until the 1920's was a Bible centered country as any Shia'h nation is a theocracy.

Theres a tender shaky line we always walk in the US. We have the best Universities in the world and most of the world sends their elites to our Universities for advanced training and educations in the sciences. China has more "honor level" students in several Provinces alone than we have students in our entire ed system. Im afraid that we may see the US become another religious centered country where all rules of science will become arbitrary to the masses and college educated and graduate trained scientists will , once again, be looked on with contempt. Thats why I collect old public and "Normal school" science books from the 19th and early 20th century. I often use them in seminar classeswith my grad students to just see examples of how we taught science to our kids in the days when Adam and Eve were considered physical realities and a flood was "scientifically a certainty"

I dont think anything can be done except to maintain vigilance and be active in our science ed associations. We have a good one for bio and geo educators called the NCSE (National Center for Science Education) It has a good website and its quarterly newsletter available to anyone who puts up 35 bucks a year . Their newsletter is US based but every so often , they post articles of how nascent culture wars are doing in other countries.

"Room for religion and science" is not the issue at all because our constitution clearly protects the(a) "Free expression of religion" BUT it also states that "b) "Congress shall not establish a state religion". The seond ostensibly protects us FROM religion while the first part guarantees the freedom OF religion.
There are very few religious sects that espouse blending church AND state. These are minority sects that represent less than 5% of the population. Yet these 5%ers are declaiming their 'supposed rights" to teach their sectarian views that preaxh Biblical inerrancy of the legends of the Penteteuch that were scientifically debunked over 100 years ago. Most of us think it unfair that w should have to listen to that crap as sxcientific when we have the fossils, the DNA, geological evidence of an old earth and aworld civilizational" history" that can be evidenced beyondk 20000 years before the supposed creation. I dont want to have us waste good tax money on fairy tales and legends of Creation and anti science(especially when we dont consider teaching the creation legends of the Iroquois or the MAya. Its a fools task to keep these clowns from gaining footholds in our education system. Weve got a very comfortable place for the evangelical Christians who wish to teach their kids (NOT MINE) about Adam and Eve or Noahs Flood as "science". WE allow them to organize Charter Schools or arrange for "Home schooling". Rather than messing up a public elementary and secondary school system that isnt the greatest to begin with , many of us are quite active in keeping that foothold from becoming a beahhead and a "breakout".
Spendi just doesnt get it at all. Hes just arrogant and purposely dim about this entire topic. He doesnt understand the tricks and trsps that the Creation lobby and its bastard child, the IDers have already been using to try to turn our clocks back 100 years. He thinks its some picayune point when , like sevral other constitutional issues that are under attack, its extremely important . I get annoyed at spendi, not for any wordstyle (Although he can be a total PITA with run-on multi object sentences and one sentence paragraphs). Instead, I get annoyed at his frowardness. HEs a contrary sumbitch with no real reason for his point of discussions. Many have asked him to start a thread on the"Sociological aspects of evolution" , hes refused and has insisted on just dropping spenditurds all over this one. If you note, Wandes posts and newsclips are focused, whereas our Uk dypsomaniac is not even in the same parking lot, and he has the stones to claim that he unerstands the debate.

Evolution threads remind me of the Hitler threads. You can spend hours of your time over the years, posting pages of cogent remarks on the topic, and torpedoing the horseshit of a pack of smug gobshites, only to have a new one show up to demand that someone answer his or her silly objections--which have been covered time and again. The subject is sufficiently emotive that people just can't accept that they're wrong, always have been wrong, and always will be wrong, unless and until they actually learn something reliable about the subject.

Maybe so, but we are always 2 Supreme Court justices from Shariah STatehood. Be not afraid, just be concerned.

Our Democtratic Representative Republic is a baad form of government he said.

Standing ovation, farmerman -- a comprehensive explanation of the issues.

I appreciate the time you took to reply, and it was worthy of a scholar and yet readable. There was only one part that was truely new to me, and that was how many people feel about religion winning. I never attributed that possibility to a modern democracy. It is a very scary thought, that religion might take over the teaching of science, but how, is something I still puzzle about even though you made an excellent effort to explain it.

I live in the middle of OZ's equivalent of the Bible belt, and although I am surrounded by whackos who know each other from church and organise car accidents and the like to be the fault of the non-religious person (by those church members who work in the local insurance office) thay have no hope of taking over the State curriculum which is protected by all the fellow heathens (God bless 'em) who live in metropolitan areas. Soon we will have a national curriculum and it will be even more protected.

How does someone qualify at primary school level if they are not taught science ? It is impossible here. The government would step in and say "you", being a home parent schooling children or a recognised religious school, have failed. You will be replaced by the child going to a State School. You have to pass science to get out of primary school, and the age of the dinosaurs and the age of the solar system is included.

Incidently, in those State Schools we do teach the creation stories of other cultures, esp the Aboriginal Dream Time.

Rather than attack the religious, would your efforts be better spent getting a national curiculum ?

The problem with the US vis a vis a national education ciriculum is that about 93% of education funding comes from local and state sources, which dictate that those are the principle decision makers for ciriculum.

Thats the facts that we live with, AND, Im not sure that the word education even APPEARS in the US Constitution. In My state (Pennsylvania), Our state Constitution provides for a "Thorough and efficient education system to serve the needs of the Commonwealth" and there are several articles and sections about what can and cant be funded and what can be attempted, and why religious schools dont get any public money.
Its a bit confusing but our founding fathers had the idea for a country and were scared to death in developing a "Complete set of operating instructions" from a central government. WE have several areas in our constitution that go on at length about reserving certain rights for states and the people.

Thinking about it, I might like a nationally developed curriculum (if anyone would ask). Itd save all this " forced vigilance " that we have to maintain so that there are no national groundswells of Evangelism that could cause a backlash of religion in all aspects of life , not just education.

You are lucky if your educational curriculum can remain fairly secular in your sciences (even now we have a 'new" front rising to revise the study of history and social studies. Were not very efficient in how weve had this Constitution work. It has a lot of stuff we take for granted that arent even mentioned. So the metes and bounds that we define and enjoy these rights are written sorta tangentially. I agree that the "Freedom of and from religion and the further protection against a state religion" have been a fairly overworked series of clauses that we polish up to solve problems in many areas.
Its not perfect but it is the way we govern ourselves.Itd be an interesting thread sometime to delve into things that such compacts as our constitution or yours (or any bunch of countries) mention such things and how they are different around the world.

bed time

Which other creation stories are taught at your children's local state primary school, Ionus? I'm curious to know.

I gather you're talking about inland Queensland when you talk about living in an Oz "bible belt"?