Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

That will never sink in. .

Why not. It's pretty straightforward fm.

We are adapted to learn a language but not which one. The former is biological, a function of brain parts, and the latter sociological, soul.

We are adapted to deal with environments but not to deal with any specific one except maybe Eden.

We are adapted to have memory but not what its contents are. We are adapted to use our hands but not to what use they are put to.

The educational process is a system which takes advantage of these characteristics to, hopefully, beneficially adapt a collective. That process involves those sciences you have on Ignore. How does your limited science get to a concert pianist? Or a religious ritual. Or any ritual.

You need to show that the language and memory functions of science at the expense of the language and memory function of beliefs is a beneficial adaptation to the collective in order to justify investing in the former and withdrawing funds from the latter. cf. separation of Church and State which it seems to me is to prevent the State interfering with the Church rather than the other way round. If it is to make any sense I mean.

In the event of a total choice of science language and memory content and eradication of belief language and memory (which you cannot avoid favouring) are you then creating a new species of human being along the lines of Spock or Dalek types. Different to yourself in fact. I assume.

There is also the problem of sexual selection in which characteristics might be dangerous to survival but successful in attracting females to mate. "The last rasping gasp of the mantis's groom". Reproductive opportunities risking the survival of the organism.

The NFL minus rules. The whole machismo bullshit thing. Or why we have monogamy. Your limited science can't explain monogamy.

Emotions and psychosomatic reactions vary from place to place and from time to time. Even in fine gradations. And they are hardly processes due to the scientific severities of your side. The aboriginal inhabitants of North America had a completely different attitude to death that the present inhabitants. And evolution doesn't do much over 300 years. A mere 10 generations. Insignificant. Not measureable. Not with fruit flies over thousands of generations.

Your short post actually says nothing except that you are trying to give the impression that you are familiar with evolutionary psychology, and with a superior dismissive tone suggesting you are well on top of it, without you taking the trouble to even hint at why we should accept such nonsense. A freebie at our expense. Your usual trick which we really ought to hope you didn't teach your students but suspect that you did. Any fool can say "That will never sink in.. "

Read some stuff that challenges your thinking instead that which strokes your ego.

Oh!! ... to be able to go into that subject in a tete-a-tete with Judge Jones. My brain fair yearns for such an evening in his library whilst trying out the best traditional bourbon. I could tie him in knots.

I sent Judge Jones an e-mail with a link to your post. He responded with a brief e-mail message: "I am shaking."

Well he might wande!!

I would begin the evening in the library with Judge Jones, after the usual pleasantries of course, by asking whether he thought that any hidden agendas, undeclared interests, various coalitions and potential uncontrollable forces were considered in the case and that, social life being what it is, did he feel that his decision, from which atheists have derived such succour, was informed by only the simple and transparent motives which were brought before him. And, social life being what it is, have disinteresed observers any reason to suppose than no such factors were at work.

That's adorable, spendi.

No way to tell, by his cleverly disguised question, that spendi has any hidden agendas, undeclared interests, various coalitions and potential uncontrollable forces .
I think that spendi believes that the entire case was not even preecipitated by the activist school board.


Mere ignorance never deprives spendi of a topic on which to expound

I have no reason to suppose that the case was precipitated by the school board, I assume all school boards are "activist", or otherwise. I have an open mind on the springs of the action. You seem to have a closed one.

Why do you use "activist" to designate an entity you don't approve of? You're an activist NCSE member.

Obviously you dont have the first letter of the word "clue". You are merely an apologist for the Dover SChoolboards actions in precipitating this case which wasted the courts time as the IDers merely fished around for a "Word or phrase" that could safely slip under the tent of actually being "Science". Obviously they were not that smart. FAce it ole girl, the IDers will continue to skirt the edges with new phrases, proposals, propositions and new positions to try to circumvent the first amendment.


When the "entity" is a stealth front of the Fundamentalist religious worldview, "activist" seems to be the least critical term to describe their shenanigans. If you dont like it, I invite you to start your own thread where yo can pat yourself on the back till your clavicle erodes from blunt force trauma(Or are you merely afraid that noone will play with you?)

Of course I don't on how the actions were "precipitated". Neither do you. The difference is that you believe everything you read which fortifies your prejudices and I don't. That means you base everything you say on your speculations. I allow for other causes as well as the "on the face of it" one you're in bed with.

I know which approach is the most scientific. As this is a science thread it is you who should start another thread. You could go on the "What I want for Christmas" forum.

I suppose you didn't respond to my comments on evolutionary psychology because they were absolute drivel and I must have been drunk when I wrote them.

That post was certainly drivel.

So what's the Catholic Church's hidden agenda, spendius, when the pope's personal astronomer (yes, he has one) says intelligent design is bad science and bad theology? You do realize your own church is stabbing you in the back, spendi, don't you? Perhaps it's a Catholic plot to promote atheism.

I rule nothing out Jack. The ways of man are devious indeed. And we men are simple creatures.

It's an interesting metaphor though is me being stabbed in the back. I'm more into dummies dipped in syrup and swaddlings.

Could you explain what "bad theology" actually is. I know what bad science is. fm loads this thread up with lashings of that.

Watching a quiz television show just now, I immediately thought of this thread, when a woman failed to answer 1. What secondary color results from mixing the primary colors, red and blue (the woman was wearing a purple shirt, too). 2. Which of the following does not belong in our solar system? A. constellation. B. comet C. asteroid.

Your powers of association are truly remarkable.

Actually Edgar is being quite perceptive - on this page we see a Spendius fantasy on what he thinks might be an imaginary conversation with Judge Jones (whom Wandel appears to know personally) whereas on the previous page the same poster admitted among other things that

as well as


For those who don't know, Frank Harris writes novels about demented loners given to torturing, mutilating, and murdering unknown people and making works of "art" with their remains; the marquis is presumably too well known to require much explanation. I say we call Spendius's bluff and to that effect I volunteer to contribute the cost of a return flight London-Chicago on the clear understanding that other posters will cover expenses for his stay there and make arrangements for him to meet either the judge - suitably warned of the visitor's predilections, of course - or such other substitute as might be acceptable to the parties. Will the library at the Ritz-Carlton suit as a venue? It can be rented for private parties in the evening (I'll make arrangements) and we can always throw Spendius in the adjoining pool if he tries to get violent. Time to put up or shut up:

I don't need to be defended to that troll piece of ****.

You have the wrong Frank Harris there old girl. I'm surprised you know so much about the one you have in mind. I've never heard of your Frank Harris.

The Marquis is not well known at all. A lot of stories were made up about him in order to discredit his republicanism. It looks like you believe them all. He was a political prisoner most of his adult life. Some historians say that he lit the blue touchpaper to start the French Revolution. He requires a very great deal of explanation actually. I refer you to Geoffrey Gorer's book on him and also that of Donald Thomas.

Try to find out what it is you speak of. This is Able to Know not Lies and Distortions.

Swinburne said that there would be a statue of the Marquis put up in every civilised city in the world one day.

You're not much help to "those who don't know" are you?

I did put up. I posted how I might begin the conversation. I'm waiting for an answer. The internet is to save having to stay in dumps like the one in your picture.

Here it is again--



You answer it HS seeing as how you know so much.

Any opinion , authored by spendius regarding US jurisprudence, is a wild guess at best. Usually he merely spouts some opinion from his butt and hopes it will be regarded as more than the fart it is.
Judge Jones was limited by the LAW. He is a Conservative Judge placed in the bench by the Bush Jr regime and is a practicing Lutheran.
He just needed to be shown that the entire "science" of ID had any merit at all. The trial went on for weeks and, obviously the task should have been easy to accomplish.
The IIDers had the respopnsibility to put up their case in chief, and they failed miserably.
WHY? it is abundantly obvious in Judge Jones lengthy opinion. Pwrhaps our friend should read it rather than continuously show his ignorance by copping to ignorant blurts .

That's no answer to the points I have raised fm and you know it. I'm envisaging a situation in which I ran the defence rather than those who did and who had no chance because they played on the anti-IDer's safe ground and with the anti-IDer's definitions of science.

And I have explained why they did that.



That's "anti-theist" if not atheist.