61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 07:23 am
@Setanta,
dress up like ALbert Johnson , with sabre drawn,
"Im here on orders of President Buchanan, I will preserve the placidity damn you or therelyy be Mormon Blood on the mountain of Zion"

Maybe thats too direct
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 07:32 am
That A. S. Johnston, he was a melodramatic kinda guy . . .
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 08:08 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
They are missing a real cash cow here.


Well get in on it fm. If you know where the cash cows are and nobody else does you're going to be loaded. All you have to do it put your money where your silly, fat gob is.

Do you avoid the sort of company which will tell you what a narcissistic and derogatory statement that actually is?

I've just watched 2 hours of Visions of Light. Dozens of American movie experts talking about the history of movies. On numerous occasions they referred to European influences regarding technical innovations and, without exception, they were complimentary. There was not a glimpse of that narrow provincial jingoism which you display towards Europe.

Perhaps you are atypical.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 09:34 am
Quote:
Ark Encounter, which will feature a 500-foot wooden reproduction of Noah's Ark containing live animals such as giraffes, is projected to cost as much as $172.5 million and create 500 full-time and 400 part-time jobs.

The park, on 800 acres in Grant County off Interstate 75, also will include a Walled City, live animal shows, a reproduction of the Tower of Babel, a 500-seat special-effects theater, an aviary and a first-century Middle Eastern village.


It just occurred to me that 1,000 years from now, archaeologists digging in what once was Northern Kentucky, will use this to support the biblical story.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 10:12 am
OKLAHOMA UPDATE
Quote:
State Senator Plans Bill to Address Evolution in Public Schools
(Meredith Saldana, KTEN News, December 21, 2010)

State Senator Josh Brecheen stressed that the final wording of the bill is not complete but says the issues the bill deals with are vital to our children.

Senator Brecheen says children should be given all the facts when it comes to evolution.

"If we really are going to use science in the classroom, let's use the full science, let's not just be selective in our science. That's what my legislation is designed to do," Brecheen said.

The senator says he supports having creationism--the belief that God created the world without evolution--taught in public schools.

"You either remove both or you put both in," he said.

In an op-ed he wrote last week, Brecheen called evolution, "a religion," and says there are serious flaws in the theory that students ought to know.

"The main fallacy with Darwinian theory," he argued, "is the sudden appearance at about 540 million years [ago] of fossil records. It's like a guy standing at the chalkboard and saying okay here's an atom [and then writing] question mark, question mark, human--here we are. But its fact, and there's zero evidence to back it up."

But reputable scientists disagree including Murray State Professor Bruce Stewart who says the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

He argues that the fossil record shows many transitional forms that support evolutionary theory.

"Science departments everywhere in accredited universities or any sort of legitimate research organization all work on the founding principle that we use science and evolution is science," he said.

Professor Stewart says teaching any alternatives to evolution would hurt Oklahoma kids' education.

"Teaching creationism or intelligent design would be a disastrous thing to include in a science course. It could be appropriately included in world religions or in other forums, but certainly not as science," he said.

"This is the future of our state, the future of our nation is dependant on what we teach our kidos in the classroom," said Senator Brecheen.

Oklahoma's major universities including OU and OSU all agree that evolution is the best science and that alternatives such as creationism should not be taught in public schools.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 10:35 am
@wandeljw,
The way the question is usually phrased is:

Quote:
Should religion be put on an equal basis as evolution in public schools?


The real answer: Only if the religion you choose is the RIGHT one...

In other words, if you want an apples-to-apples or oranges-to-oranges comparison, then you'd need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution...

The only plausible candidates of course, would be Voodoo, Rastafari, and Santeria.

In fact, Rastafari would work particularly well in certain kinds of team teaching situations: a teacher looking for a way to put 30 teenagers into the right frame of mind for indoctrination into an ideological doctrine as stupid as evolution could simply walk across the hall to the Rasta class for a box of spliffs.

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/icebear46/Q-RastaFishWt.gif
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 11:03 am
@wandeljw,
Quote:
It just occurred to me that 1,000 years from now, archaeologists digging in what once was Northern Kentucky, will use this to support the biblical story.


Until they have dug up a few "Made in China" signs.

I think it will still be Northern Kentucky in a thousand years. Longer. It might be in the EEC mind you.

Why are anti-IDers such pessimistic defeatists?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 11:07 am
@wandeljw,
One can only assume that politicians such as this see taking such a position to be in their electoral interest. One does wonder what they actually believe, as opposed to what they want the voters to think they believe.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 11:55 am
@gungasnake,
There's the Eleusinian Mystery religions gunga. I don't know much about them for obvious reasons but I think they were a good fit intellectually with evolution. It was a capital offence to reveal the mysteries.

Most of the upper class were adepts.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 11:57 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
One does wonder what they actually believe, as opposed to what they want the voters to think they believe.


Wow!! What a blinding insight!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 12:09 pm
@Setanta,
It really doesn't matter; they would do almost anything to win.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 01:44 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

OKLAHOMA UPDATE
Quote:
State Senator Plans Bill to Address Evolution in Public Schools
(Meredith Saldana, KTEN News, December 21, 2010)

In an op-ed he wrote last week, Brecheen called evolution, "a religion," and says there are serious flaws in the theory that students ought to know.

"The main fallacy with Darwinian theory," he argued, "is the sudden appearance at about 540 million years [ago] of fossil records. It's like a guy standing at the chalkboard and saying okay here's an atom [and then writing] question mark, question mark, human--here we are. But its fact, and there's zero evidence to back it up."


The example he gives of a "flaw" isn't a flaw at all. His information is simply incorrect (not surprisingly).

If anything, his "example" tells us where he gets his information, and it obviously isn't from recent scientific information sources. It seems to be a recitation of creationism propaganda probably from various web sites.

Why are senators, untrained in science and probably actively hostile toward it, allowed to propose laws which relate to things they know nothing about. It's a real riot to watch senators who know nothing about science try to explain it.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 01:57 pm
@rosborne979,
There is a certain pride that many legislators have in their own ignorance of science. Its true that they dont know the science, but for some reason, like gunga, they truly enjoy "making up" a complete batch of bullshit and try to foist it off as thruth. Thats one of the reasons that a significant portion of politicians are not credible in their testimonies and beliefs
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 02:13 pm
@rosborne979,
HAving said that, i have to reconsider who first printed the concept of a "Cambrian EXplosion" and how that entire tale was repackaged by science reporters and how it ws bought as ultimate "truth" even though, since the inception of the concept, science has been shooting holes in the "Sudden appearnace in the fossil record of complex life"
As I presented a page back, The entire CAmbrian Explosion can actually be driven back into the NEOARCHEAN period , when fossils of the three major simple life forms were first notede. AND the first examples of complex life (including mollusca, annelida, and arthropoda,) were first seen in sedimentary rocks over 2.1 Billion years old. The actual 560 mya "Cambrian Explosion" dates were actually another 40 plus MY older than what had been initially reported and the entire sequence of development of complex life took about another 500 million years or about the entire time length from the mid Cambrian till today.
Its been a matter of exposure in sediments . SInce most geological exposures decline geometrically with each 100 million years , actually finding exposures of early sediments hs been the biggest problem.
This is fairly recent evidence and the "Cambrian Explosion" as an argument that Creationists have clung to is not a real problem to DArwinian development.
I just wish that guys like BAkker and Gould, would have considered their own phrase generator skills before they opened their yaps. I think Gould is more responsible for fuel that the quote miners have used in the past. Now that Goulds "Explosion" is seen to be just another data node , Im sure that some junior high school kids, reasonably conversant with the fossil record, could do a lot to explain to their legilsators how stupid thelegislators positions are, And that science has never been static
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 02:25 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
But reputable scientists disagree including Murray State Professor Bruce Stewart who says the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.


Which is not an argument for teaching evolution to adolescents.

Quote:
"Science departments everywhere in accredited universities or any sort of legitimate research organization all work on the founding principle that we use science and evolution is science," he said.


Neither is that.

Quote:

Professor Stewart says teaching any alternatives to evolution would hurt Oklahoma kids' education.


A bald assertion based on Prof. Stewart's idea of "hurt". It more likely will hurt Prof. Stewart's growing empire. The whole point of the challenge to teaching evolution is that it will "hurt" the kid's. Such a challenge is the only serious one in play.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 02:28 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

There is a certain pride that many legislators have in their own ignorance of science. Its true that they dont know the science, but for some reason, like gunga, they truly enjoy "making up" a complete batch of bullshit and try to foist it off as thruth.

Maybe we should call it the Gunga Effect.

It's strange listening to these people recite the same ignorant prattle over and over again without any attempt to understand anything.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 02:38 pm
@rosborne979,
And ros should know that it's very tiresome reading the same people prattle over and over again contradicting the other prattle without any attempt to understand anything. As the other side were there first ros is the loose shutter banging in the wind.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 03:10 pm
@spendius,
That's you, spendi. You prattle on without providing any support for what you say, and what you say usually doesn't apply to the topic at hand.

Over and over and over...
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 03:32 pm
Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears, Oh my!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2010 04:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Look old boy--my last post was directed at wande's quote. It applied to the topic in hand. Directly, unequivocally and without a shadow of a doubt.

Why don't you address it instead of prattling away in your usual fatuous style?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 03:17:40