Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

HMM, the first step in acquiring wisdom is to recognize ones own problems

Are you discounting that they might have seen the natural effects on a society of promoting a materialist doctrine in schools and in Media which can't get there fast enough for very obvious reasons. Have you that consideration on Ignore? Are we back with your interpretation being the only one there is. That's not very scientific fm.

Do you think that giant Media corporations are promoting materialism out of the generosity of their hearts? Or out of some principle other than profit?

Do you want the flocks uncontrolled? Or do you want science to do the controlling. And there's only one way for Science to do it. The Pavlovian way. Only not half-way like now. All the way.

If I lived in Texas I might be prepared to listen to what the secessionists have to say. No politician would promote such a thing unless he/she felt there was a bandwagon to hitch on.

You don't understand the USA or politicians. The NE of America must look a bit like the SE of England looks to us gumps in the provinces who get creamed hourly, often less, by the sweet talkers. Texans pay their taxes I assume and send young men off to fight. Does the Constitution say how they should bring their kids up? That's what you are arguing for in case it hasn't dawned on you yet. Your control freakery must be frustrated where you are so you are extending its reach to where it won't matter. You have caused the Tea-Party. It's an irrational snarl at your doings. Calling it "irrational" is completly and utterly stupid. It's a sign somebody is pretty pissed off with something which they can't get a grip on because it's as slippery as a fresh caught octopus which is not so slippery when it doesn't want to be. Geddit?

There's more to bringing kids up than schooling. A lot more. In the majority of cases the schooling is insignificant by the side of the rest. All I remember of school are the rules of football and cricket and to watch out for ******* adults and especially, as Mailer said, when they are looking to do you some good. And the rules of football and cricket are the starting point of knowing how to debate. And what to pay the most attention to.

Walter Shandy, a character you bear distinct resemblences to, had a plan written out for the education of his son Tristram. Mr Sterne's fabulous masterpiece, in every sense of the word, is dedicated, among other things, to taking the piss out of gentlemen like Walter Shandy. And some other things which are only relevant here if I'm prepared to take all night explaining why they are. Which I'm not.

The rest of that post is a bit of faint saccharine-talking and I notice that you used the word "toadies", as if the NCSE has no toadies, in order to demonstrate your critical thinking and scientific methodology prowess and to warn us of the trust we can place with confidence in that mealy-mouthed bullshit cribbed off an NSCE bulletin board.

Then you would be automatically included with the passel of those ignorant of the "historical method". AFter all, even though some may try to disagree, our Civil War decided that point for good.

Nothing decides anything for good. We wouldn't have got as far as we have if it did. Which it can't. For logical reasons. Do you really not understand evolution to that extent? Or my post?

Another non sequitur caused by being unable to read properly as if everybody chooses their words with the carelessness you do.

I only said "prepared to listen". I said nothing about being persuaded. I'll listen to anything. How do you know it's no good unless you check it out? Study it. Do you think they might have studied the proposition? Wasn't the expression "flyover states" invented in the N.E. out of contempt? A sneer of superiority and thought very droll.

And even if I was persuaded it wouldn't mean I was ignorant of the historical method. It might mean the opposite and that you are. You're just blurting assertions again in the sevice of trying to persuade us all that you are up to speed on the historical method. Like hell you are.

Setanta was saying that "we" would kick ass in Utah. Not him. Some mythical "we". Like in we won the war.

Have you not tried platting sawdust?

To which I responded that you would THEN be included with those ignorant of the historical method. Look that phrase up sometime, facts may provide you witha a refreshing alternative to your incoherent lunacy.

I would be nice if you contributed something relevant to the subject of the thread a bit more often.

Obviously you don't read the thread Olga.

I wrote, on this very page,--



Are you saying that's not relevant to the thread? Really??? !!

I'm the mainstay of the threads relating to this matter. I'm the only serious challenger to the teaching of evolution. This thread is a continuation of the Intelligent Design thread. This one has 6,626 posts and 72,447 views. The ID thread has 19,138 posts and 281,829 views. It's a bit impolite of you to jump in with such a silly remark in view of that don't you think Olga? I certainly think so. And I'm the most regular poster on both.

Your unscientific bias has got the better of you I'm afraid. Are you an opponent of the Church's teaching on artificial birth control, adultery, pre-marital intercourse, homosexuality, abortion, eugenics, or homosexuality? Materialists are. Contribute something yourself in support of promoting those things instead of jumping in with that ignorant remark.

Do you want Science controlling the "flocks" or do you want the "flocks" uncontrolled?

What's your point?

It's not really a thread for ladies as the matter of evolution is a bit too embarrassing for them in case you don't know. That's the main reason for my challenge to the materialist's promoting of evolution theory. The theory does promiscuous copulation when the female comes on heat and a diet of bananas and leaves.

Are there no interesting threads on fabric conditioners? This is men's work.

I'm actually interested in the thread topic: Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution. Not in you're ultra conservative religious & political views. Dead boring & predictable waffle, mostly.

he doesnt "get" that hes as predictable as tomato soup. However it often fun just to see what his fevered mind can conjure. Today I see that hes back to despising women. He must have had a lonely life .

I can picture him in a "wife beater" tee shirt with a cold one and a cigarrette dangling from his mouth reading Locke.

Put me on Ignore Olga.

If you don't and choose to read my response in the next post the responsibility is entirely your own.

Well then Olga--give us your rabid, leftie, feminist viewpoint on the matter instead of peevishly pronouncing ad homs which, in case you don't know, not only mean nothing but are contradicted, rubbished even, by the figures of the posts and views on the two threads to which, so far, you have added nothing that couldn't be heard in a playground.

Let's have your opinions on the materialist's reasons for being in favour of the knickerless can-can being performed on prime time TV and which so many eager young ladies are willing and able to perform and, indeed, suffer restraint of trade from being prevented from doing so. If you can make a persuasive argument in favour of it I will present them to the authorities.

A significant challenge to the teaching of evolution in schools is that the materialist doctrines it obviously embodies render laws against such things as the knickerless can-can* ridiculous and an unfair discrimination against those young ladies who are eager to demonstrate their attributes in this regard. And judging from what I hear about the internet there is a very large number of them who are condemned by the religious prosciption of such things to work in demeaning jobs.

* a mild euphemism for other behaviours.

PS-- will you be so kind as to point out one of my posts which you think boring and predictable and I will try to explain to your closed up mind how it is related to the topic. If they "mostly" are boring and predictable you should have little difficulty in finding a specimen.

What is really, really boring and very, very predictable is having recourse, when all else fails, to such easy-to-do jibes as those are and which always come, as your's do, without any justifications which can only be deemed un-necessary on a science thread, such as this is, by a completely out of control and overblown ego.

What a ridiculous post that is fm. At least Olga does the same thing more efficiently.

What your fevered mind pictures has nothing to do with me or with any reality I know of. And knock off trying to kid A2Kers that you are familar with Locke. Locke is beyond your capacities.

As if anyone in their right mind would respond to that, spendius.
I'll just keep scrolling over your nonsense & hope something more relevant is posted before too long.

I shouldn't have posted at all, but I became very weary of the non-stop waffle, farmer.
A mistake, obviously, as it just encourages more waffle. (Including yet more patronizing misogyny. How could a woman teacher in Australia possibly be interested in the challenges to the teaching of science programs in the US public education system? Beyond comprehension, obviously.)
So, as I said, I will return to scrolling over his silly posts.

I've been avoiding this page because i don't read posts by Spurious, and don't intend to be sideswiped by them because others are quoting him. This post, however, has a significant point in it. Australia is the point of origin for a good deal of contemporary creationist activism. I don't know how it works there (and would be interested to find out), but i suspect that they shifted their attention to the United States as being possibly more fertile ground for their propaganda. What are your thougths, Miss Olga?

What is your justification for that unscientific blurt fm?

I showed recently, and without reply, that materialists are despisers of women.

What do you find offensive about a performance of the knickerless can-can? I have witnessed a performance of it and found it quite delightful and it was received with rapturous applause from the whole audience. We Christians are quite broad minded unlike you puritan materialists who rely on assertions to keep yourselves in tight with the ladies and who fake all your responses to their delightful nature.

The Catholic Church is dedicated to the sanctity of women which is why it is opposed to artificial birth control, intromission with ejaculation before binding contracts are made, divorce, abortion and male homosexuality and other forms of wanking. And particularly to eugenics which is even more demeaning to women that the others are.

And if you want to dispute any of that go ahead. Evolution theory is demeaning to women. If it wasn't I wouldn't be here attacking it. It is your coalition that despises women and assertions to the contrary are ineffective without you explaining how much in women's interests are those things I've mentioned. Which you can't.

Oh fm-- I forgot mechanical sex lessons by liberal neurotics.

I'm beginning to wonder what sort of frisson of pleasure Setanta gets by continually reminding the readers here that he doesn't read my posts.

The only reason Olga doesn't find that boring and predictable is because she has been persuaded that she is on the same side as Setanta. The anti-woman side.

Setanta, I have taught in the public education system in the state of Victoria for quite a few years now. That is the state education system I am most familiar with. Religious interpretation plays no part in teaching of science here. The study of science is described as an "empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis". If a teacher declared that they were about to embark on the teaching intelligent design as an alternative view to evolution in their classroom, it would not be considered acceptable.
I understand there has been a push to introduce the teaching of "intelligent design" in Queensland schools, but nothing near the extent of the challenge that I've been reading about in US schools on this thread.

Personally, I have absolutely no problem with the teaching of comparative religion in our public education system. Australia is a multicultural society, after all. (Buddhism is actually our fastest growing religion.) But I'm certain there would be a public outcry if any attempt were made to introduce intelligent design within the science curriculum in most states. Not just from atheists, but from also from religious groups (including Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Church of England, even Catholics, etc, etc) which are all part of Oz society.