61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 07:46 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Are you saying there is intromission and ejaculation in such cases?
Yes.
There are other examples of rape closer to us. Chimpanzees will often have the female present rather than get a good beating. Not often, but this does also end in ejaculation. It seems bad sex is better than a good bashing.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 09:27 am
@Ionus,
It's all too anthropomorphic for me Io. And there are a large number of other species besides cats and chimps even if what you say is true which I have reservations about.

The idea that there is rape in the animal world is not one I would stick up for.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 09:50 am
@electronicmail,
Quote:
....the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection....


Giving that a bit more thought I think it is devious. "Advanced" is dodgy for a start. If it's from a zero morality base, as it is, it should be "created". I think " either directly or indirectly" is to tire the reader's eye. And religion is the source of habit, the reasoning powers and instruction.

And &c. borders on insulting when you have a book going. Like there are even more things to dilute the power of the word "religion" but Darwin is being coy about what they are. Just &c. " Much more........than natural selection" suggests that natural selection is playing a part in morality formation but Darwin has neither demonstrated it or, if NS plays no part, said nothing.

It should read that moral qualities exist because of religion and natural selection plays no part. That's what Darwin actually says but he doesn't want to be seen to be saying it. And for a very good reason. It can only mean that morality is not natural and to the extent morality exists it is imposed by powers not natural and to undermine those powers cannot but undermine morality. And few people benefitted from the morality of the times more than did Mr Darwin.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 10:15 am
One might say Darwin invented impressionism. It was an art movement which arose about 10 years after Origins was published.

How those hotshot artists must have laughed at the sentence quoted in my last post as an example of how to give an impression the opposite of the truth to those in a state of mind eager to receive the impression and treat it as scientific.

And fm says I suck up to authority. And he's thrumming with excitement at being seduced by Mr Darwin's literary toilette.

I use "seduced" in order to avoid what I now know are barbaric crudities to some on here.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 10:38 am
@spendius,
spendi, You don't even know about impressionism; it started with Japanese art.
0 Replies
 
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 11:34 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
....the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection....

...Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future. But we are not here concerned with hopes or fears, only with the truth as far as our reason permits us to discover it; and I have given the evidence to the best of my ability. We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system—with all these exalted powers—Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.


That seems a trifle incoherent to me. Habit, reason, instruction, &c. are aspects of religion.

Instruction to the young is plain to see up and down the animal kingdom. Even ants have habits. And many animals think logically so reason isn't a human monopoly. All these creatures are now religious? Ya think?? Rolling Eyes
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 12:06 pm
@electronicmail,
No I don't. Nor do I think animals have habits or think logically.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 12:08 pm
@spendius,
spendi, We (some of us, anywhos) also believe some insects have more logic than you do.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 12:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Obviously. It's your basic position. You can't afford to think I'm logical.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 12:29 pm
@spendius,
First of all, we consider the simple fact that the insect's brain capacity is smaller and simpler than humans. However, they can manage to use their brains to the max by just watching their activities and how they respond to their environments. Even to human observation, they are logical.

You don't show those abilities in your perception of human life or living.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 02:35 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Is it my posts 4,419,199 and 4,419,214 that you are applying your mind to? If it is you seem rather enthusiastic about not concerning yourself with what I had to say in them.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 02:42 pm
Quote:
Our Views: Anti-science goal of law
(Baton Rouge Advocate, Editorial Opinion, November 19, 2010)

If you believed the advocates of Louisiana’s “Science Education Act,” the whole point was not to ban evolution from textbooks in science classes. Rather, it was to provide a way for teachers to introduce “supplemental materials” that would question the purported weaknesses in evolution.

You were wrong to believe that, if you did.

And Rep. Frank Hoffman, R-West Monroe, frankly admitted the lie the other day.

Another of the same group of creationism advocates had challenged some proposed life-science textbooks, on the grounds that the books treated evolution as the basis of biology. Hoffman was one of the votes on a review committee that objected to the texts.

His objection? That the books under review were not consistent with the spirit of the 2008 state law.

That’s an absurd position: If the law was intended to “protect” teachers from imaginary “threats” if they questioned “weaknesses” in evolution — the quotation marks are intended to say that every point is a political illusion, not reality — then the material in existing textbooks is not an issue.

What is the spirit of the “Science Education Act” in reality? It is to challenge evolution, not simply protect intellectual freedom of teachers who want to “question” evolution’s “weaknesses.”

Forgive the overuse of quotation marks, but every assertion of creationists in this debate is so fraudulent that the quote marks are necessary.

Any reputable science text should teach evolution, as that is one of the fundamentals of biological science. The fraud behind the “Science Education Act” is that it was called a measure narrowly designed to deal with a specific problem.

Rather, it is part of an anti-intellectual crusade that can serve only to hobble the education of Louisiana’s children, and will have the effect of bringing ridicule on this state.

Thank you, Rep. Hoffman, for telling it like it is. We hope that BESE stands firm against this campaign of ignorance.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 03:16 pm
@spendius,
I've been "applying" my mind to most of what wandel has posted concerning "the Teaching of Evolution." I agree with 100% of what he posts, but <1% of what you post. Seems, you are the person who seems ill informed about this subject matter, since <5% may have agreed with some of your opinions. And all by accident!
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 06:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Define what "hobble" means in--

Quote:
Rather, it is part of an anti-intellectual crusade that can serve only to hobble the education of Louisiana’s children.


It is the key word and it's an assertion.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 07:22 pm
@spendius,
Define it yourself! I'm not your dictionary.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 08:18 pm
@spendius,
Not all species rape, Spendi. Ones that have dimorphism tend to have rape but they also have a big male to look after several females. If he does his job well, they will never get raped. Herds animals that have dimorphisn can have occasional rape, such as chimps.

If you really want to apply human morality, have a look at pinobos. Homosexuality, incest, child molestation, but no rape. If seems if everybody fucks everybody rape does not exist.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 08:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
they can manage to use their brains to the max
Of all the stupid things you have said, giving insects brain power is your finest work yet.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2010 08:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Define it yourself! I'm not your dictionary.
You dont know the meaning of the words you use ? No surprises there.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 04:27 am
@wandeljw,
Quote:
If you believed the advocates of Louisiana’s “Science Education Act,” the whole point was not to ban evolution from textbooks in science classes. Rather, it was to provide a way for teachers to introduce “supplemental materials” that would question the purported weaknesses in evolution.

You were wrong to believe that, if you did


Noone really believed that the goal was to provide any supplemental material that would be used to enhance the kids "critical thinking skills". Considering the source of the actions, how it follows suit from all the previous activities, the loss at DOver, and the "whackamole" technique that these Religious conventions have adopted across the country, only a fool would believe in the "Science EDucation ACt" was really about Science.

spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 04:33 am
@cicerone imposter,
It means to restrict movement by a device. Pencil skirts, high heels, bustles and ankle chains like Salammbo wore are hobbling devices. NFL protective gear.

I want you to explain. You said you agree 100% with what wande posts and he posted the editor of the Baton Rouge Advocate with an argument which was posited on his assertion that the children of Louisiana were going to be hobbled unless the authorities followed his advice.

I would like you to explain what he meant and why you agree with it 100%. Otherwise you are agreeing with an argument you don't understand which is a reflex action or a tic.

Are the people who have completed an education in Louisiana now hobbled? Do they know? Is it constitutional?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 11/27/2024 at 07:39:14