61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 02:17 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
I guess if a judge doesn't rule the way you want, you label them an "activist" judge and declare them wrong.


It's no different than when a judge rules the way you want and you praise his wisdom to the skies and assert he's not an activist.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 05:31 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
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.


This is her latest post fm--

Quote:
osso, Loved that. I mean LOVED that.

dj, Beaming from the birds. Wonderful pictures. Thanks, kid.


You are joshing me mate. Professional notwithstanding.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 05:48 pm
@spendius,
Shes "texting" to a friend.
Look spendi, there are several people in A2k that (and Im sorry to break it to you) much better writers than you can hope to be. And I dont mean just scholarship, I mean actual excellence in communication (which you seem to put far down on your list of "Wants")

Roberta, Joe NAtion, Endymion,Rosborne, Joe from C and Setanta are often excellent writers. Not always of course, as everyone has a bad day and writes hurriedly or is just too lazy to fix run-ons. YOU however, sir, are more often than not , trying to consciously sound like the gibberish of Joyce or"Dharma Bums" . This is neither the forum nor the kind of place in which that kind of crap is countenanced. Ill just keep reminding you when you run-on, or disagree with yourself within a single post, or write one sentence paragraphs.

Outside of that, you fail to come to any reasonable points in your theses.
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 05:57 pm
@farmerman,
Yeap, constantly trying to be too cute by half can turn a man awfully ugly.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 05:59 pm
@kuvasz,
Its the constant battle between format and substance aint it?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 11:22 pm
No, the constitution does not mention education. It does outline what states are prohibited from doing (issuing letters of marque, levying war, imposing tariffs on other states, forming confederacies, etc.), and it does guarantee that every state will have a republican form of government (i.e., a government of laws, with none above the law). Of course, the constitution also requires the states to give "full faith and credit" to the laws of the other states, and requires an extradition mechanism.

The distinction between the United States and former dominions such as Canada and Australia is that the constitution was written to replace an unworkable confederation of states, and to unite states which had previously seen themselves as states in the sense of "nation-states." No state was obliged to participate, and the union of states was only accomplished by recognizing an inherent, individual sovereignty in each state. The states of Australia, as with the provinces of Canada, were already existent as colonial entities which were then unified by incorporation into a dominion of the English crown. Canada remains a confederation, even though no longer a dominion, and it is theoretically feasible for a province to withdraw from the confederation. I don't know how that works in Australia. But once our constitution was ratified, no state any longer had an option to either fail to participate in or to leave the union.

The constitution, however, does crucially provide for the means by which an individual can bring suit against a state. This has been the means by which the Supremes have dealt with each attempt to slip creationism into school curricula. The Arkansas and Louisiana cases were both brought by individuals objecting to state law to "establish religion" through education requirements to teach creationism. The Supremes in both cases found it to be unacceptable under the establishment clause, and that the Louisiana case failed to pass the Lemon test. The first amendment does provide for the separation of church and state, and courts have not interpreted that into existence, as FM suggested earlier.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

These are the two crucial clauses about religion, the opening clauses of the first amendment. They are referred to as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause." The Federal courts, including the Supremes, have over time extended most rights guaranteed in the constitution to the states, based on the first paragraph of the fourteenth amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So the courts have not meddled in education, something for which they have no brief. Rather, they have protected the privileges and immunities of all citizens against arbitrary law, and have used the fourteenth amendment to "incorporate" citizens' rights. The Federal courts cannot tell a state how to educate their children, but the courts can tell a state that it may not enact laws which intend to establish religion. (It is important to understand the principle of incorporation, because prior to its application, states did indeed have established religions--Thoreau's first act of civil disobedience was to refuse to pay the church tax in Massachusetts--and Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" letter was written to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut who were complaining of the onerous nature of the Congregationalist establishment of that state.)

I personally don't see a problem with each state arranging their educational system to their own satisfaction. There is a carrot and stick sort of means by which the Federal government can intervene. The one is to withhold Federal funding for education to states which don't meet standards--the carrot is offering that Federal funding if those standards are met. The stick comes from court cases such as McClean versus Arkansas, Epperson versus Arkansas and Edwards versus Aguillard (the Louisiana case).

I don't think it is realistic to attempt to impose national standards on state educational systems. Should all states have bi-lingual education in Spanish and English? There certainly are a lot of Spanish-speakers in California and the Southwest--but what about Minnesota? Are there enough there to place an onerous burden on the school districts of that state? Should there be requirements (basically, "unfunded mandates") for facilities and equipment which make sense in densely populated states with large urban centers applied to states like Montana, with fewer than a million citizens in the entire state? Can a mostly rural state like that raise the revenues necessary to meet requirements such as that?

The way school districts are funded (locally for the most part, by the state to a lesser extent and by the Feds to the least extent) may create many inequities, but you'll not convince me that centralized, national control w0uld be a good solution.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 04:58 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Look spendi, there are several people in A2k that (and Im sorry to break it to you) much better writers than you can hope to be. And I dont mean just scholarship, I mean actual excellence in communication (which you seem to put far down on your list of "Wants")


So what? The discussion is about the merits of challenging the teaching of evolution. That is a complex matter because the curriculum of the teaching of the subject has nowhere been agreed. Nor has it been agreed who will teach the subject and who will supervise them. There is also the difficulty of the subject's consistency with literature and art generally and with its acceptance in the community which the school is serving. Until such matters are clarified the discussion is too superficial to be useful. It is well known that the materialist, communist manifesto speaks in the national interest (aka the interest of the Party) and downplays the role of family and community. Without opposition it seeks to eradicate them.

What does my writing have to do with any of that? What is "better" writing anyway? The better the writing in the service of promoting an issue, or a doctrine, is all the more dangerous for being "better" if the doctrine or the issue is dangerous. It is a political question whether attacks on the family and the community and tradition are acceptable.

What is not acceptable though is insulting the intelligence of those reading here by thinking that they won't notice your diversions onto matters of no consequence as a pathetic attempt to avoid answering any points made.

In the last two pages these have appeared in my posts--

Quote:
The fossil is a fact. The life course of the animal it represents is the truth.
(The fossil is an inorganic object and nothing to do with biology which concerns itself with organic life in process.)

Quote:
Would you deny the rationality of suspicious thinking
(The article wande gave us claimed such thinking to be neurotic, indeed was posited on it being so, with no further explanations, and was praised by Setanta who we then might assume never engages in suspicious thinking.)

Quote:
Explain to us what use evolution is in biology.


Tell me what faults you see in my expression of these and then tell me how you really ought to be addressing them instead of going into one of your standard ranting run-ons about my writing, or my falling off barstools, in which you praise a few A2Kers in the hope such praise will recruit them to your cause and without offering the slightest shred of evidence of either what "better" writing is or whether the persons oleaginously and cheaply flattered are capable of producing any which I am just as entitled to assert they are not as you are that they are.

PS- I could never hope to write like Mr Joyce and I find Mr Kerouac unreadable.

Quote:
Outside of that, you fail to come to any reasonable points in your theses.


An empty assertion and the hallmark of the worst sort of writing known to mankind. And ridiculous coming from you who consistently fail to answer any points raised except by irrelevant insults, bombast and blustering gobshite. As I have demonstrated right here.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 05:26 am
@spendius,
Your aleays comparing how "well written" your stuff is and, when I suggested Roberta as an editor for you, you became defensive. For you, since the topic has been of little use to you, its been an example of parading out your victorian and run-on style of communication. Just above , set had gone on at some length, yet in it he was focused and driving apoint home using clear paragraphs , sentences, and phrases.
Youre all parsley and no steak.

Subject aside, I think youre too impressed with your own speaking. Im just trying to tell you that Im not so easily impressed.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 06:25 am
@farmerman,
I could tear Setanta's essay into little shreds. It's so generalised and theoretical as to be valueless. It imagines the USA in the same way a kid imagines a battle in its toy fort. 303 million individuals don't enter into it.

But once again, despite being reminded, you have failed to address the points I raised. That's "defensive". It's cheating actually. And yourself most of all.

Where is your evidence (the steak) for "Your aleays comparing how "well written" your stuff is". Am I? Where?

Roberta couldn't edit my stuff if she spent the next 50 years on it. That's a fact and has nothing to do with being defensive.

The topic has been of very great use to me. It has not been for you or any other anti-IDers. You've all been running on the spot since you first discovered the astounding "fact" that there's no God and religion is thus so much hokum. I have been studying the functions of religion since long before I started on here. You don't think there are any. Which is a position counter to the historical record in all cultures.

Who cares what you think? I certainly don't. It's as predictable as the sun coming up which, of course, it doesn't.

"Subject aside" eh? Do you ever do anything else?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 06:37 am
@farmerman,
Do you deny that it is, at the least, a reasonable hypothesis that anti-IDers on here, and in general, Media, the legal profession and the advertising industry are engaged in trying to turn the western world into an atheist society?

wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 07:30 am
TEXAS UPDATE
Quote:
Texas board adopts new social studies curriculum
(By APRIL CASTRO, Associated Press, May 22, 2010)

AUSTIN, Texas " Texas schoolchildren will be required to learn that the words "separation of church and state" aren't in the Constitution and evaluate whether the United Nations undermines U.S. sovereignty under new social studies curriculum.

In final votes late Friday, conservatives on the State Board of Education strengthened requirements on teaching the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers and required that the U.S. government be referred to as a "constitutional republic" rather than "democratic."

The board approved the new standards with two 9-5 votes along party lines after months of ideological haggling and debate that drew attention beyond Texas.

The guidelines will be used to teach some 4.8 million students for the next 10 years. They also will be used by textbook publishers who often develop materials for other states based on those approved in Texas, though Texas teachers ave latitude in deciding how to teach the material.

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said after the votes Friday that such decisions should be made at the local level and school officials "should keep politics out" of curriculum debates.

"Parents should be very wary of politicians designing curriculum," Duncan said in a statement.

But Republican board member David Bradley said the curriculum revision process has always been political but the ruling faction had changed since the last time social studies standards were adopted.

"We took our licks, we got outvoted," he said referring to the debate 10 years earlier. "Now it's 10-5 in the other direction ... we're an elected body, this is a political process. Outside that, go find yourself a benevolent dictator."

GOP board member Geraldine Miller was absent during the votes.

The board attempted to make more than 200 amendments this week, reshaping draft standards that had been prepared over the last year and a half by expert groups of teachers and professors.

As new amendments were being presented just moments before the vote, Democrats bristled that the changes had not been vetted.

"I will not be part of the vote that's going to support this kind of history," said Mary Helen Berlanga, a Democrat.

At least one state lawmaker vowed legislative action to "rein in" the board.

"I am disturbed that a majority of the board decided their own political agendas were more important than the education of Texas children," said Rep. Mike Villarreal, a San Antonio Democrat.

In one of the most significant curriculum changes, the board diluted the rationale for the separation of church and state in a high school government class, noting that the words were not in the Constitution and requiring students to compare and contrast the judicial language with the First Amendment's wording.

Students also will be required to study the decline in the U.S. dollar's value, including the abandonment of the gold standard.

The board rejected language to modernize the classification of historic periods to B.C.E. and C.E. from the traditional B.C. and A.D., and agreed to replace Thomas Jefferson as an example of an influential political philosopher in a world history class. They also required students to evaluate efforts by global organizations such as the United Nations to undermine U.S. sovereignty.

Former board chairman Don McLeroy, one of the board's most outspoken conservatives, said the Texas history curriculum has been unfairly skewed to the left after years of Democrats controlling the board and he just wants to bring it back into balance.

Educators have blasted the curriculum proposals for politicizing education. Teachers also have said the document is too long and will force students to memorize lists of names rather than learning to critically think.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 07:35 am
spendi: "I could tear Setanta's essay into little shreds."

'Could'. Yet somehow skips any real attempt.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 07:40 am
@spendius,
Quote:
trying to turn the western world into an atheist society?
Thats blatantly obvious Spendi...they are the fundamentalists of science. They dont care what happens so long as everyone does what they think is right. There is not thought past how to make it happen. No consequences, they live a trouble free live because they can always blame someone else or deny there was any wrong doing.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 07:44 am
In the news tonight they had a Texas council starting the meeting with a prayer and then deciding to approve a revised history text book where the south gets equal say about slavery and the slave trade is renamed the Atlantic Triangle Trade. What happened to the seperation of church and state ? Surely a council meeting is more state than a high school ?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 07:58 am
@Ionus,
Well, maybe someone will bring a suit about the textbooks under a Texas Constitutional Issue, however theres really nothing from a nnational standpoint that protects the educated population from sheer evangelical orneriness
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 08:00 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
trying to turn the western world into an atheist society?
Again, ths couldnt really happen in the US because, as the point spendi was trying to improperly push, ATHEISM would be considerd a religion under our constitution , depite its dictionary meaning.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 08:40 am
@spendius,
Right then fm. Ask Roberta to edit this post. Let's see what she makes of it. It is on that vexed subject, no more so than on these evolution threads, of the Ignore function.

In Kingsley Amis' book, DIFFICULTIES WITH GIRLS, a must read for those with aspirations, there is a scene at a "getting to know the neighbours" party which delves into the psychological aspects of resorting to such mean measures.

Stevie is one half of what the reader is expected to think of the homosexual trial "marriage" two doors down the landing. He is a retired actor who was fairly famous for his portrayals of tough guys with wobbly integrity. He is "him indoors". Eric being his squeeze. There's no evidence for any funny goings on of the sort with which the hero of the book renders his wife pale by answering her innocent question about such things. Eric has a deep "yo-ho-ho" voice with a strong west country burr. Cornwall I think.

Anyway--it gets catty and I might as well pick it up where Eric says, " 'Look, all right, all right, Stevie, we'll forget all about the--' "

What Eric is offering to forget about is the "veal concoction" and the movie coming on TV later in which an old pal of Stevie's is feeched. (That's "feechewered" a subtle play on "featured"---as in Features' Editor. It's a new word I invented years ago.) Stevie wants to stay in and Eric wants to go to the pub with the others.

Stevie then says, " 'I don't like you at all, you know. I think you're a mean killjoy sort of fellow, that I do.' "

"Staring gloomily at Eric", the narrator goes on, " Stevie poured the contents of his glass, only an inch or so of liquid, slowly on to the carpet and walked with his rolling tread into the kitchen whose door he shut behind him firmly but not noisily."

He put them on Ignore. Mr Amis knew a lot about being put on Ignore as did his two best mates who it would insult your literary pretensions for me to name.

The scene that follows involves Mr and Mrs Armitage leaving at her prompting. Mr Armitage is Eric's boss in the Navy pensions office and he returns on some silly excuse involving non-existent cigarettes to tell Eric that he quite understands and accepts that this life has its difficulties and for all of us.

Then--"Something large and breakable fell to the kitchen floor".

To which stimulus," 'That's just in case we start patching things up amongst ourselves,' Eric said."

The Ignore function on the anatomy table. Even the having a peep part.

Before any sort of realistic debate between adults on a subject as important as teaching evolution theory can possibly proceed it must be taken for granted that no seats at the table are to be taken by those who have a tendency to employ gambits such as Ignore and its many variations. They are profoundly unscientific which is the reason they are considered bad mannered.

Launching into a spiel about my prose needing Roberta's attention, which is only a cheap trick to get Roberta on fm's side, and that other stuff about me not being as hot as he thinks I think I am, A2K's only wem, as a light flurry of snow to evade the questions I raised without being seen to do so is a fairly simple variation of Ignore.

One might easily see why no seats are available at the table in a grown up scientific debate. One might just as easily say that my questions need no answer because I don't mow the lawn properly. By which is meant in a manner fm approves of.

His circularities are such that if you fixed a tungsten-carbide tip to the end of his nose you could saw a teak tree trunk into six inch planks in very quick time.

Let's see what Roberta makes of that.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 08:55 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
'Could'. Yet somehow skips any real attempt.


Come on Ed. They are not only very complicated matters but complex ones as well. My whole objection is that Setanta makes it all sound so simple. Do you think it's as simple as he made out? He has to make it simple so he can imagine he understands it because he hates anything he doesn't understand because feeling he understands it enables him to confidently lecture us all on the subject of the United States of America. It was pure mush. I'd dare bet that those who read it don't remember a damn thing about it already.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 09:02 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
.they are the fundamentalists of science. They dont care what happens so long as everyone does what they think is right. There is not thought past how to make it happen. No consequences, they live a trouble free live because they can always blame someone else or deny there was any wrong doing.


Steady on Io. That's getting pretty close to a definition of a terrorist but one with no bottle.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 09:06 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Well, maybe someone will bring a suit about the textbooks under a Texas Constitutional Issue, however theres really nothing from a nnational standpoint that protects the educated population from sheer evangelical orneriness


What does "educated" mean in that fm?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 07/04/2025 at 09:10:59