61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 05:28 am
@msolga,
I think Olga that you would be well advised to avoid this thread. It will only cause you to become angry. The presence of ladies here can only result in the challenges to the teaching of evolution being those acceptable at gatherings of women of a certain age at vicarage garden parties. Those sorts of challenges are designed to ensure that the real case against teaching evolution theory is not given any sort of airing unless those offering them are prepared to be crude and uncouth. Hence wande's gracious welcome.

Indeed, so eager is he to dumb down the argument that he has already forgotten my request to inform us of whose initiative it was that caused the video he promoted to be made in the first place.

I think it was the Prof's initiative, the Prof's production and under the Prof's control. Possibly the extremely crass opening sequence was deliberately designed to allay the suspicions of scientific types such as myself. The cameras were in the room to begin with and the introduction of the two participants was not only ridiculous but awkwardly staged. If you watch with even a modicum of attention you will see the Prof looking for the chalk mark on the floor where it had previously been arranged he should position himself. So he starts out with a blatant lie.

When he attempted to answer the questions about intermediate species with that silly old gravity business as if those challenging the teaching of evolution were automatically challenging the fact of gravity it was obvious that the video was being made for the stupidest section of the population which is the market niche all his other productions are aimed at and which is ever enthusiastic to read anything which undermines the Christian teachings on sexual matters which, by extension, justifies any form of sexual licentiousness one might care to imagine providing it is not covered by the law. The Prof is on his third wife after all which means, of course, that he has twice experienced those events which normally accompany replacing one wife with another. Notice how the Prof's eye-blink rate shot up when Ms Wright introduced the concept of his "agenda". His eye-blink rate was about 3 times that of Ms Wright's and behavioural psychology has some interesting things to say about such things.

And he fell into that "beauty of nature" claptrap when everybody knows that nature is horrible and red in tooth and claw and that religion is an attempt to mitigate its ghastly exigencies which we can only assume that the Prof is promoting. He descends into base sentimentality with that one. There is no such thing as beauty to a scientist.

He's rubbish and Wendy pissed all over him.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 08:59 am
The point is dadman that it is not complicated at all to the anti-IDers on this thread. Their personal agendas are really simple and straightforward. They have run their emotional needs up against Christian morality and come down on the side one might expect. Thus any bludgeon which undermines Christian teaching serves their purpose and they mistakenly and foolishly believe evolution theory is a suitable tool for the purpose.

Personally I cannot see why they bother about what Christian morality says unless it's a residual guilt at their infringements of that morality.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2010 02:13 am
@spendius,
It is no good arguing Spendi...we must have the same beliefs and reasoning of the woman in the video....you know, easily defeated...it makes the "scientists" who arent feel like they are....scientists that is....If Dawkins can do it than so can they. If one person thinks like the woman in the video than clearly we all must...it is a scientific conclusion, and they keep telling us they KNOW but we dont.

They feel inferior so they look for easy targets.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2010 03:10 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
It is no good arguing Spendi...


Is that what he was doing? Surprised

Couldn't understand what he was getting at, myself.

The "woman in the video" (to one who has not been involved in this "debate" to any great degree at all) was completely unconvincing (unless, I guess, you totally agreed with her perspective). She was a push-over because she had no intelligent responses to Dawkin's questions & kept trying (unsuccessfully) to change the focus of the discussion to something else entirely.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2010 05:27 am
@msolga,
Quote:
Couldn't understand what he was getting at, myself.


Is that supposed to impress us all Olga? It's no surprise to me though. I did warn you that this thread is not for well brought-up ladies.

I didn't watch much of the video. Just enough to know that there was nothing in the argument that we veterans have not been over many times before. So the only thing of interest was the body language. The open neck shirt, the awkward movements Dawkins made, the eye blink rate and, Lord have mercy upon us, the bloody gravity argument: a crass insult to the intelligence of Ms Wright and any viewers. Whether two lots of alimony and a third in prospect contributed to Dawkins's haunted appearance I don't know. He certainly looked nervous when Wendy brought up the possibility of a hidden agenda.

You might have taken the trouble to find out the name of the "woman in the video". Shades of "her indoors" eh? How about "She who must be obeyed"?

Have you an agenda? You obviously know no science so siding with a chap like him against a lady of renown and considerable beauty has to have some explanation.

Ms Wright was not changing "the focus of the discussion to something else entirely". She was delicately hinting that it was something to do with his little dickie without her coming right out and saying so knowing that if she did Dawkins would edit it out. Her scornful chortles signified that.

I guess your total agreement with the perspective of Mr Dawkins had something to do with you being so convinced. The whole video was off topic because the debate is actually about shagging and the stud farm applications of scientific materialism which Mr Bernard Shaw had the nerve to bring out into the open in Major Barbara. There's a Dr Strangelove at the bottom of the professor and Wendy knew it.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2010 08:16 am
Quote:
Dover Trap in the Pelican State
(Guest Essay by Ken Miller at Panda'sThumb.org, August 4, 2010)

Two years ago, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) into law, as noted on The Panda’s Thumb.

When the law was being considered in the Legislature, its proponents were adamant that it wasn’t about “creationism” or “intelligent design.” Folks from the Louisiana Family Forum and the Discovery Institute backed the LSEA, of course, but all they were interested in was good critical thinking, right?

Well, not so much. Now the Livingston Parish School Board is openly using the LSEA as legal justification to implement the teaching of creationism in their public schools. Barbara Forrest, one of the expert witnesses in Kitzmiller v. Dover exposes the maneuverings and alliances of anti-evolution forces in her state in a post at the Louisiana Coalition for Science.

Predictably, the Discovery Institute is now doing the same thing it did back in 2005 to the Dover School Board. They’re turning on their own supporters, and asking how anyone could possibly confuse their ideas with creationism. In his American Spectator article, Bruce Chapman, President of the Discovery Institute, now states that the very people who supported his efforts to get the LSEA passed are “ignorant” of the content of intelligent design theory. Darn. I wonder how those poor folks managed to think that ID equals creationism?

Somehow, the more things change, the more they remain the same. Could it be that the next Kitzmiller Reunion will be in Louisiana?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2010 09:11 am
A short extract from Laurence Sterne's A Sentimental Journey--

NB. At the time a deist was an atheist.

Quote:
There are three epochas in the empire of a French woman.--She is
coquette,--then deist,--then devote: the empire during these is
never lost,--she only changes her subjects when thirty-five years
and more have unpeopled her dominion of the slaves of love, she re-
peoples it with slaves of infidelity,--and then with the slaves of
the church.

Madame de V- was vibrating betwixt the first of those epochas: the
colour of the rose was fading fast away;--she ought to have been a
deist five years before the time I had the honour to pay my first
visit.

She placed me upon the same sofa with her, for the sake of
disputing the point of religion more closely.--In short Madame de
V- told me she believed nothing.--I told Madame de V- it might be
her principle, but I was sure it could not be her interest to level
the outworks, without which I could not conceive how such a citadel
as hers could be defended;--that there was not a more dangerous
thing in the world than for a beauty to be a deist;--that it was a
debt I owed my creed not to conceal it from her;--that I had not
been five minutes sat upon the sofa beside her, but I had begun to
form designs;--and what is it, but the sentiments of religion, and
the persuasion they had excited in her breast, which could have
check'd them as they rose up?

We are not adamant, said I, taking hold of her hand;--and there is
need of all restraints, till age in her own time steals in and lays
them on us.--But my dear lady, said I, kissing her hand,--'tis too-
-too soon.

I declare I had the credit all over Paris of unperverting Madame de
V-.--She affirmed to Monsieur D- and the Abbe M-, that in one half
hour I had said more for revealed religion, than all their
Encyclopaedia had said against it.--I was listed directly into
Madame de V-'s coterie;--and she put off the epocha of deism for
two years.
Quote:


Perhaps I might "unpervert" Ms Forrest if I were to have the honour of sitting on a sofa next to her and explaining the implications of the passage, avoiding the reticences Mr Sterne's time demanded of him, as it relates to those of her gender who have only just reached the first "epoch" of their "empires" and who abound in the higher grades of secondary education classrooms.

On here, it is pointless as it is those very "outworks" that our anti-IDers are straining to level with the dirt and thus provide feeding opportunities for media conglomerates and the legal profession to gorge on.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2010 09:34 am
@wandeljw,
Here's another to juxtapose with Mr Miller's infantile dross--

Quote:
.....the tears trickled down her cheeks.

I sat down close by her; and Maria let me wipe them away as they fell, with my handkerchief.—I then steep’d it in my own—and then in hers—and then in mine—and then I wip’d hers again—and as I did it, I felt such undescribable emotions within me, as I am sure could not be accounted for from any combinations of matter and motion.
I am positive I have a soul; nor can all the books with which materialists have pester’d the world ever convince me of the contrary.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2010 11:22 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

Quote:
Dover Trap in the Pelican State
(Guest Essay by Ken Miller at Panda'sThumb.org, August 4, 2010)

Somehow, the more things change, the more they remain the same. Could it be that the next Kitzmiller Reunion will be in Louisiana?


Oh Boy, more "Breathtaking Inanity" on the way (and on display), courtesy of the taxpayers of Louisiana.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2010 11:52 am
@rosborne979,
But assertions of "breathtaking inanity" are not proof of breathtaking inanity. The assertion certainly is though.

Get an oxygen cylinder ros if it's true your breath was taken.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 05:08 am
@rosborne979,
It will be interesting to see whether "Critical analysis" means getting all fired up on a POV (presumably anti science and pro-religion) without teaching the knowledge required by most other school systems.

Some of the correspondents herein feel that "critical analysis" is a position taken without any base of knowledge. Its gonna be a careful road that the Creationists and IDjits will have to tread so that they dont leave their asses exposed like they did in Dover. In any case, I believ that this will probably be fought at a Fed district level and the USSC had announced (When ALito was ensconsed) that they werent interested in hearing any more of these "veiled Creationism " cases.

Its a waste of time because its a foregone conclusion (IN MHO) that the Creationists and IDjits wont be able to present a front that makes them look like anything more than a bunch of Evangelicals.

Jindal, by getting involved in this who,e area , is killing any national presence he may have wanted. Hes seeminlgly shucked his entire previous life as a buddingscholar in biochem and has turned , instead , into a cartoon of the "Inheret the Wind' character
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 07:02 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Its gonna be a careful road that the Creationists and IDjits will have to tread so that they dont leave their asses exposed like they did in Dover.


They were hamstrung by the delicate necessity of avoiding exposing the "asses" of certain parties in the court and its environs. When the ladies don't withdraw from the table when the claret and cigars are passed around the result is a load of nonsense. A general Ignore of the more pressing concerns.

You have forgotten the "controversial issues" which wande quoted the Texas senator as mentioning.

To what do you think he was referring fm? Politicians are not noted for holding off their best arguments.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 07:59 am
Quote:
The evolution of a Christian creationist
(By Rachel Held Evans, Opinion Essay, The Washington Post, August 6, 2010)

Good News! Young evangelicals are shifting their allegiance.

Much has been said about the mass exodus of young adults from church, with some studies suggesting that seventy percent of Protestants age 18-30 drop out before they turn 23.

While the factors behind the trend are complex, I'm not surprised that young evangelicals like me are feeling less comfortable in the pews these days. Our pastors might not like it, but the world is changing, and we are changing with it. Unless the evangelical church in America can adapt and evolve, it might not survive in a postmodern world.

I know because I almost abandoned it myself.

A child of the culture wars, I knew what abortion was before I knew where babies came from. I grew up scribbling words like "debatable" and "unlikely" in the margins of biology textbooks, fearlessly defending a 6,000-year-old-earth against atheists I only knew in my imagination. When I was in middle school, my family moved to the buckle of the Bible Belt and became residents of Dayton, Tennessee, home of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. There I attended a Christian college, listened to Christian music, and voted my Christian values. People called me "Bible girl."

This faith of mine didn't fall apart all at once, but instead eroded gradually, as I began studying science, interacting with people of other faiths, and experiencing a touch of "voter's remorse" when my pro-life president championed two wars overseas. My questions turned into skepticism, my skepticism into doubt, and I stopped going to church for a while.

My return to faith is something of a survival story that I chronicle in my memoir, "Evolving in Monkey Town" (Zondervan, 2010). The phone calls and emails I've received since its publication confirm what I've suspected all along: I'm not alone. Young evangelicals across the country are experiencing a collective crisis of faith.

Unfortunately, many leave Christianity altogether. But others, like me, simply undergo a change.

At the heart of this change is a shift in allegiance. For so long, evangelical Christianity demanded our allegiance to range of causes--from young earth creationism, to religious nationalism, to Republican politics. Somehow the radical teachings of a first century rabbi got all tangled up with modern political platforms and theological positions that were never essential to Christianity to begin with.

Young evangelicals are in the process of picking apart and deconstructing this tangled mess of ideas in order to get back to the most basic teachings of Jesus. So you shouldn't be surprised to bump into more and more and more oddities like me--a young evangelical Christian who votes for Democrats, has gay friends, and believes in evolution.

But don't be fooled into thinking this shift in allegiance means we're simply jumping from one political platform to another. At its best this change signals an allegiance first and foremost to the Kingdom of God, which knows no political party or geographic boundary, but instead grows outside of these confines through acts of love, humility, and peace. Instead of protesting outside abortion clinics, for example, we're championing adoption and supporting single moms. Instead of reducing our Christian service to a duty at the ballot box, we're looking for practical ways to address hunger, human trafficking, and homelessness.

The bad news for the Religious Right is that young evangelicals are tired of the culture wars. The good news for everyone else is that we're ready to make peace.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 08:15 am
@wandeljw,
Sort of like a spendi fart. She is the master of the obvious isnt ashe. She writes a book about it? WOw, how original is that?
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 10:57 am
@farmerman,
I like that she is rejecting the politics and culture wars of her church.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 12:41 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Sort of like a spendi fart.


That last spendi fart has not been answered yet. Perhaps wande should answer it. It was him who quoted the Texas senator.

Here it is again--

Quote:

You have forgotten the "controversial issues" which wande quoted the Texas senator as mentioning.

To what do you think he was referring fm? Politicians are not noted for holding off their best arguments.


If the ones opposing evolution teaching to adolescents have arguments they don't wish to make public to save all your faces then you are engaged in a tennis match with opponents who have no strings in their racquets whilst you are pretending they have. No "controversial issues" were raised in Dover and yet you boast you won.

I think your misogyny runs so deep you are oblivious to it.

Come on boys--tell us all what you think the senator meant. It should be easy enough with all the hints I have provided. Don't tell me you would be embarrassed. Scientists are not embarrassed by facts.

wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 12:48 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
That last spendi fart has not been answered yet. Perhaps wande should answer it. It was him who quoted the Texas senator.

Here it is again--

Quote:
You have forgotten the "controversial issues" which wande quoted the Texas senator as mentioning.

To what do you think he was referring fm? Politicians are not noted for holding off their best arguments.



What was the name of the Texas senator?
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 02:11 pm
@wandeljw,
I don't remember that wande. Who cares anyway what his name was. You had posted the info. It was on the other thread I think. Maybe you started this thread at about that time. It would make sense because once I had seen him reported as saying it I got the confidence to start leaking obtuse hints of what I knew he was getting at, there being nothing else it could have been, assuming you do critical analysis, except something not talked about in public and certainly not in Dover courtrooms where only abstract discussions about blood clotting are permitted and expert witnesses are called to give evidence that the absence of intermediates in the fossil record didn't matter as it could easily be explained away using big words. Oh-and creaming the taxpayers of Dover cunningly. Some of the conspiracy theories I have read are far wilder than one I could get up on a sheet of paper to explain the cunning. That the "first cause" was some headbangers on the school board is really self indulgent intellectually. Not that it mightn't have been mind you. One couldn't rule it out.

Wendy Wright's scornful laughter at certain points in your video suggests to me that she is clued into that.

Unless the senator spells them out you are playing opponents with no strings in their racquets.

It was probably a report in a Texas newspaper which might be owned in China for all I know.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 02:20 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Sort of like a spendi fart.


Check out this from an Intrepid post recently on the "Thanks, Robert. looks great so far!" thread.

Quote:
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

Well, despite what everyone says about spendius, his command of the
English language is impeccable and he does use terms that are not too common.


To which sweet sentiments Intrepid responded--

"Impeccable" eh and from such a fragrant source. It means it would be impossible to improve upon.

Quote:
Spendius is ok in my books.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 03:15 pm
Anybody who uses "it's" for the possessive is pretty peccable in my book.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 05:28:53