61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 08:53 am
@wandeljw,
wande quoted-

Quote:
Show me even one baby with the head of a grown man on his body


Any one with its face buried in Mom's Apron.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 09:31 am
@wandeljw,
wande wrote-

Quote:
There are some people who want to discuss sociological issues with you on the ID thread.


It is very difficult to imagine anybody quite so stupid as to think what is taught in schools is not a sociological issue. It isn't anything else.

It is the very reason you lot are scared of introducing into schools the brave martyrs who pioneered at great risk the very positions you now take in your nice armchairs. I mean, of course, the Marquis de Sade, Julien Offroy de La Mettrie and Wilhelm Reich whose works went way beyond the infantile claptrap you lot put out.

Explain to me wande why your push to bring pure scientific thinking into schools does not begin with these men. You are even scared of Germaine Greer. Without them, and others of lesser importance, you would be hauled off to the magistrates.

You ought to have framed pictures of them on your walls.

Please try not to indulge in trying to determine the education of 50 million kids without having done even your basic homework.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 12:51 pm
Fresh with a major sponsor (SUBARU), the GEological Society of America is presenting a public forum as part of its 2008 Annual Meeting in Houston(mark yer calendars , its Oct 7 from 7-9 PM Houston time)
Its a bunch of real scientists who will present in non-technical terms , evidence for evolution. It will also include a discussion of ID and the nature of scientific discovery.

More info at
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2008/publicforum.htm
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 01:29 pm
@farmerman,
In the promo guff fm there is this-

Quote:
the differences between science, religion, and intelligent design


So your own "real scientists" have distinguished between religion and intelligent design. That's something your lot just couldn't accept and continually trolled wande's thread with stuff about creationism whilst calling me a troll and I was sticking to the topic.

And the reason is obvious. Ease of the bone. And that's not a good example to set the 50 million kids in schools. Especially when it was pointed out to you on many occasions and simply ignored.

I read today that Google's algorithm is patented and secret. Imagine, if you will God's algorithm. Wouldn't it be scientific to try to decode it? Can we not attempt to read it out of Nature. We will never know whether there is intelligence behind it. We might assume so as a hypothesis. Wouldn't that pique our curiosity more than the hypothesis that it was a meaningless random series of accidents?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 01:38 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Fresh with a major sponsor (SUBARU), the GEological Society of America is presenting a public forum as part of its 2008 Annual Meeting in Houston


Houston is ironic. If the new Texas director of science education sends an e-mail about the forum, he/she will also be forced to resign.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 02:17 pm
@wandeljw,
wande wrote-

Quote:
Since when is science decided at the local level?????


You do it wande everytime your fingers touch the keys. Local in your case meaning as local as local gets.

Do you really think that you are unbiased by preconceived ideas of any sort and that anything derived from the observation of the senses is fit to be taught in schools? Do any of fm's "real scientists" think that?

You are providing your own definitions for words to suit your own purposes. In this case the word "science" itself.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 02:22 pm
@rosborne979,
ros quoted-

Quote:
Just because a student can repeat the word Thermodynamic doesn't mean that they are equipped to discuss it.


Same goes for the word Science.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 02:46 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
A Parody of Creationist Arguments, by Ari Rahikkala, Live Journal:

Nice Smile Pretty accurate analogy as well. Good find.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 02:48 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Fresh with a major sponsor (SUBARU), the GEological Society of America is presenting a public forum as part of its 2008 Annual Meeting in Houston(mark yer calendars , its Oct 7 from 7-9 PM Houston time)

Cool. Wish I could be there. Maybe I'll buy a new Subaru instead. Smile

0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 03:12 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne wrote:
Quote:
A Parody of Creationist Arguments, by Ari Rahikkala, Live Journal

Nice Pretty accurate analogy as well. Good find.


I agree.

If adults came from babies, why are there still babies? Smile
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 03:32 pm
They are muttering sweet nothings among themselves again these proponents of free speech. What use is free speech if nobody's listening.

And ros has now admitted that it's a Subaru promotion. And he's leaning their way. A junket some might call it. A few days away from the wife. Might be on telly. If the headbangers mount a demo it could be headlines. It seems a bit provocative to have it in the Bible Belt.

They are certainly not going to decide anything regarding the substance of their considerations which will shift the other side one inch. Sarah would blast their communique with a blunderbuss. And note all their names.

I hope they have a good time though. Everybody should have a good time as often as possible.

One might imagine the wives of the fat, ugly sods saying "Oh--how exciting for you dear. I'll put your best suit in the cleaners." And the wives of the not bad ones saying " Don't try that stroke on me sunshine. I've seen Laurel and Hardy."

It'll all be forgotten the day after it's over. Events will have rolled right over it and flattened it out to a thousandth of the thickness of a human hair, as Mr Cox said at CERN. He meant very small.

I don't know why you're fussing about it. It's a bit jolly hockeysticks from an intellectual point of view.

Are you agents for tickets?

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 06:57 pm
@spendius,
dont emit a cow there spendi. Since noone seems to be paying you any mind Ill help you with your daily attempts at ESL. Youre doing much better with your vocabulary, but you still need some assistance in what we call "focusing your thoughts".

I think that the GSa ould even allow you in the hall since GSA doesnt(unlike Creationists and IDers) disallow participation by non-believers.

PS, when you ever gonna get laid so that you dont sound like some sexually frustrated Christian Brother.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 08:29 am
@farmerman,
Dearie me-- you do seem a bit obsessed with my sex life fm.

Have you no idea how ignorant your remark is to ladies who know where the tin-opener is kept. It's male chauvinist piggery in 7 no trumps. You make it sound like getting a pair of new shoes or getting an oil change in you car.

And from a man of your mature years it's comical.

We had a survey here which said half the sort of ladies you can easily "get laid" with are diseased and there's no way of telling which half is which.

Another survey said that you Yanks are quickest on the draw at 7 minutes, all in, grid to chequered flag, and once a month once the honeymoon period is over. And there are other matters of great interest which I sense might shock you so I'll refrain from mentioning them.

Are all anti-IDers of the same stamp. Real scientists must cringe to see you guys representing them in an international debate.

My thoughts are so focussed it sometimes makes my eyes water.

If you're giving English lessons it explains a great deal which had been mystifying me.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 09:10 am
Quote:
Evolving Creationism in the Classroom
(By JR Minkel, Scientific American, September 10, 2008)

If it's September, it's time for creationism in schools. That's how some would like it, anyway.

Sure, evolution is the linchpin of modern biology, explaining everything from antibiotic resistance in bacteria to the progression of species found in the fossil record.

That didn't stop Republican vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, from expressing the idea that creationism"the biblical notion that God created Earth and its life forms a few thousand years ago"should get equal footing with evolution in public school science classes. "Teach both," she said during a 2006 televised gubernatorial debate. "You know, don't be afraid of information."

She isn't the only one who feels that way. In the past, proponents of creationism have tried to sell it as "creation science" or "intelligent design""the idea that life is too complex to have evolved without divine intervention. But after a landmark legal setback in Pennsylvania (teaching intelligent design in the public schools was found to violate the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state), creationists have retooled their approach. This year's buzzwords were "academic freedom" and "strengths and weaknesses".

Lawmakers in several states drew inspiration from a petition published in February by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based group promoting intelligent design. The petition argued that teachers should not be penalized for "objectively presenting the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory" and students should be allowed to express their views on those same strengths and weaknesses.

Creationists chalked up a notable win with this approach in Louisiana, where Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal in June signed into law the Louisiana Science Education Act. Similar bills were introduced this year in Florida, Missouri, Michigan, South Carolina and Alabama.

In Texas, the state school board is one vote short of approving new educational standards in March that allow a curriculum that highlights the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution. It's all part of a gradual rhetorical shift away from talking about creationism and intelligent design toward casting doubt on evolution, says Joshua Rosenau, spokesperson for the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif.

"They have this idea," he says, "that it's a zero-sum game, so anything you can do to knock evolution down actually promotes creationism without having to say the word."
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 09:17 am
@farmerman,
You seem quite blissfully unaware fm that it is Christianity which holds the ladies down quietly for suchlike as the "getting laid" brigade to use as a convenience and that ladies resent it. You might, with advantage, consult Professor Greer's take on the matter.

That's why the "getting laid" brigade find wavelengths getting long enough for Walt Disney to amuse himself by metaphorically metamorphosing Mickey Mouse's tail.

And saying that nobody seems to be paying me any mind is not the same as saying that nobody is paying me any mind. You are trying to give viewers the impression that nobody is paying me any mind without you actually having said so. Which is sneaky. No sooner does one read such things than one realises it is not written in English at all but rather in pidgin effemese and it's insulting the viewers on top as if they are not up for seeing what an underhanded trick it is and possibly concluding that you might use similar underhanded tricks in your general spiel. Which, it hardly needs saying, you do so regularly on A2K that it is reasonable to assume in your other social relationships.

And I'm not sure how long the list would be of things that nobody is doing. It wouldn't be as long, though both are infinite, as a list of things nobody seems to be doing.

Now tell us more about the gig in the Lone Star state. I'm interested in such things. Will they be discussing the possibility that all the mammal fossils we have are of those creatures which were not eaten? I have the impression that the vast majority of dead animals are dispersed fairly quickly by the scavengers.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 09:53 am
@wandeljw,
wande quoted-

Quote:
"They have this idea," he says, "that it's a zero-sum game, so anything you can do to knock evolution down actually promotes creationism without having to say the word."


That is true. The general idea extends to science as well and not just to evolution. Its bottom line is exposing the nature of the scientific mindset to view so that it can be considered as a candidate to run our affairs. Which is not to say that the scientific mindset is not useful or even admired in a certain narrow way.

We all know how frustrating it must be for scientists to have brought us all the wonders and marvels we have at our disposal (electric windows, pull top beer cans and millions of abortions to mention just a few) and then to be denied access to the levers of power and, indeed, have to go cap in hand to their political masters to get a little more most of whom don't know an annode from a cathode or how to spell potato.

What science needs to do is win the hearts and minds of the voters and by the look of things that is a logical impossibilty. Sir Patrick Moore, who is looked up to as an expert in a particular field (comedy) and is well known for his rapid mode of speech, trademark monocle, poorly fitting blazers, extremely high trouser line and a fondness for the xylophone, but I couldn't see him on the hustings with a baying pack of journalists biting at his tenderest spots. He was a sickly youth and Mom fanatic and a bachelor, and we all know what Sir Len Hutton said about that class of men. That is a reasonable explanation of how he came to have so much time and energy to spare to become an expert.

A bit phallic are telescopes artistically.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 11:26 am
@wandeljw,
Quote:
"They have this idea," he says, "that it's a zero-sum game, so anything you can do to knock evolution down actually promotes creationism without having to say the word."

It's even worse because they are not knocking down evolution at all. Nobody has ever been able to produce any real "weaknesses" in the general theory. Everything in nature agrees with the basic theory, and nothing contradicts it. If they want to promote the Strengths and Weaknesses, then what exactly are the weaknesses they are worried about?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 01:45 pm
@rosborne979,
That it is too narrow and simple a way of looking at the scientific aspects of biology and that those focussed upon it too strenuously are unfit to determine the educational policy of a nation and especially of a superpower.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 03:32 pm
@rosborne979,
And another thing ros. If you are going to put on Ignore anyone who might suggest what the weaknesses are you are never going to have to deal with them and, in that case, your post represents an attempt to get a pat on the back from those who already agree with you.

A real Mom's Apron sob.

And anti-educational and anti-scientific to the uttermost end of the spectrum. Your science and your concern over education are thus demonstrated to be nothing more than postures which flatter your self esteem. A carefully constructed persona. An act.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 05:22 pm
Actually, the Ignore function has destroyed every last scintilla of your scientific credibility which is likely not to have ever existed.

It shreds you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2021 at 08:50:58