Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Since when has "inaccurate information" been defined as anything rejected by the scientific community? And which scientific community is it anyway? It only seems to include that aspect of the scientific community which deals with matter and teleologies concerning non-human life forms.

It is on the record here that anyone wishing to take the social consequences of teaching evolution into account is "dim" despite them having qualifications from American universities and their being prominent enough in public life to get elected in free elections.

Of course it makes sense to teach old, superseded, theories: astronomers learn Copernican, Newtonian, etc systems of planetary motions in addition to current state of the art theories. The really scary part is how theocracies managed to bury scientific discoveries for centuries - one example:


http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26285/?ref=rss

I think their understanding is actually stuck in the bronze age, since it consists of reciting whatever the local shaman/priest tells them. But I quibble.

Shouldn't a group called "Thought and Ethics" be submitting materials on Thought and Ethics, not Science?

Maybe the Board of Education should restrict submissions to groups with a background related to science? It seems like a rather large undertaking to have to evaluate (and possibly reject) submissions from every possible group that might want to submit material for consideration. Are there no limits on the sources of such material?

FTE must be low on cash as they enter the highly marketeable Easter season. I wish them nothing but interesting times

This thread has been going on for more than two years. I haven't seen a real challenge to the teaching of evolution.

spendi, With all of your nonsense blurb about evolution and science, you have yet to show us any "social consequences" of teaching evolution. We need more specifics; not generalities that mean absolutely nothing and has no basis.

Whenever I do ci. you either don't understand the hints, and I need hints for decency's sake, or you ignore them. Not just you of course. All of you.

I have sought guidance on many an occasion on what anti-IDers will base their moral principles upon when religion is no longer in existence? That isn't a "generality". It cannot be otherwise that moral principles will cease to exist in the teaching of evolution. Evolution has no such things. And I have made that point many times in various guises.

You are using simple sophistries on your usual assumption that you are addressing simple people such as yourself. "Teaching evolution" has logistics. It is not an abstract concept for you to play mind games with. It has consequences in logic which might well take a period of time to appear. You sit there, in a Christian world with its moral principles, not bothering your head about the situation when that time has come and Christianity is defeated and scientific materialism is all there is. Such is the inevitable result of teaching evolution and is what you are actually campaigning for even if you are kidding yourself you don't know it.

You are actually off the evolutionary track. I am the only one on it. The progress Christianity has made is well nigh miraculous. The miracle affects every moment of your life. Christianity has been a postive evolutionary adaptation by your own materialistic lights. We have no way of knowing what the desuetude of moral principles will cause except that behaviour will be controlled by power only. The Pope has no armies. The preachers have no police force.

Anti-ID (atheism) winning the argument is merely an illusion of progress unless a case is made that real progress will result. And it has not even been attempted because your side, including Dawkins, daren't make it. Bernard Shaw made it. And scared everybody out of their wits in doing so.

Christianity has its progress in the bank. You can see it in a helicopter long-shot of an NFL stadium in its setting for a night game.

When dogs combine to kill a horse they immediately begin fighting amongst themselves. Men are no different from dogs if they have no moral principles and might alone is right. Anti-IDers will soon be fighting each other when the prey is done for. Christianity is all there is keeping them from each other's throats. Deny it all you will. But your denial is not an argument. It is just a self applied comfort.

You really should try to keep the whole thread in mind rather than just your moment at the keyboard.

Why do you need a God who is an active creator for moral principles? It seems weak-minded at best.

Who or what are you having instead? And you have to face the power elite having no God as well.

I don't matter pom. It is we who need moral guidance if we are to retain such concepts as mercy. We haven't a great deal of that commodity as things stand. Your personal blessed sanctity is neither here nor there.

It is weak minded to think otherwise. "Seems" is for fainthearts who insult their audience, a common practice with anti-IDers, by giving a certain impression which their words don't actually justify.

I don't think any of you lot have ever met a full-blown evolutionist. I have. A few in fact. I'm one myself. You lot are having yourselves on for the sake of the pose which you think signifies a superior intellect and to justify what a Christian would call sexual misconduct.

A dyed-in-the-wool, flat out, no holds barred, teeth grinding evolutionist wrote--



Anti-IDers do think they know more than their opponents and are over fond of saying so. The fact that the high talent is absent only sharpens the dragon's teeth.

Hey, spendi; you ever look in the mirror? LOL

What would you call a real challenge?

No--I have no mirrors. I can't stand to see myself gradually disintegrating.

There is only one challenge and I have made it from the start. It is what are the social consequences of conditioning the youth to evolutionary principles?

It remains not only unanswered but is on Ignore. As it was in the farce at Dover which can only be thought of as intelligent if one assumes it was set up to produce the result it did. One of which was to ram Judge Jones's natural arrogance into a gear one below his having walked on water.

Not reading out the famous paragraphs on the first morning of a new teaching year will have had no measureable effect one way or the other.

None. Youth who are taught evolution, versus those who are denied it, have no special social dilemma. your question isn't on ignore, it's simply been answered enough times directly to you that most simply don't feel the need to repeat it every time you ask it. The answer hasn't changed and no threat has come from teaching evolutionary principles.

A
R
T

His (spenid's)initial assumptions are based upon a deity in charge. He links everything to that and therefore he becomes one of the very problems that weve been discussing in this thread. Only he fails to see the humor in that as he continues to chime in and derail the discussion.

spendi is unable to derail anything! He's fun to read, because he has a very unique way to describe things which I see as entertainment - pure and simple.

Spendius you say," that there is only one challenge and you have made it from the start. It is what are the social consequences of conditioning the youth to evolutionary principles?

If you truely do care about social consequences then why not study and share ethics?

I do think that after a couple thousand years that we may want to consider our known morals and question all of the traditions that were tought to us to be morally sound. What are the social consequences if we do not question our mores?


I do think that there were some moral philosophers that helped guide the bible but the sad thing is that they are from a long time ago and what they knew was limited to there frame of reference at that time. Ethics has come a long way," but who has a interest in morals in this day and time?

Do not get me wrong because I do think some philosophers of the past such as the therapeutaes may have had their morals correct, but were killed off and replaced with a religion from the state "catholic" which only gives the people a limited knowledge of the truth, along with some serious immoralities, not just catholic but many other religions!

rl, I have only one question for spendi; show us how any religion has had an impact on any society on morals and ethics? He can begin from the sun gods to the current religions of today.