61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 11:07 am
@spendius,
The hell, you say! LOL
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 12:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
How come there are millions of people who have not been manipulated by Creationism. The majority on this thread, and you set great store by that majority, have not been manipulated by Creationism except in the sense of having certain moral values inculcated indirectly by its influence. And the same with a very large number of Americans and Europeans. When it ceases to exist there will be a monopoly manipulation by atheists. There will not be no manipulation. If you weren't so thick I would accuse you of lying through your teeth. You are far too emotionally engaged with this matter, for whatever reasons, forget all about your superior intelligence, to have anything worthwhile to contribute. You troll the thread with every post and with the same repetitive drivel. It's way over your head. Your little majority claque agreeing I'm the troll is fatuous.

I'm all for misleading kids. And don't try pretending that you are not.

You're being misleading in that post. You are implying that it is a choice between evolution and creationism and it is not. Nowhere near. I doubt very much that any of the main spokespersons against teaching evolution exclusively, and without reference to problems with it, are creationists in the way you mean. They are concerned that a raft of atheist teachers will go into the nation's classrooms and promote their atheism alongside evolution. Belittling the Bible and the Church at every chance they get.

That you present the case in such a simplistic fashion when it it highly complex is extremely misleading. Ignoring the complexity is mere self-indulgence and that is self-evidently not a luxury many senior politicians have allowed themselves. Dawkins is not elected and has no responsibilities.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 01:18 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I'm all for misleading kids
it's called "socialization" and gives us adults the skills necessary to maintain our civilization.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 01:43 pm
@spendius,
spendi, You can't see the forest for the trees; many believe in the fairy tale about creationism along with the other "stories" within the bible. They've already been manipulated; that's a far gone conclusion.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 06:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
spendi, You can't see the forest for the trees; many believe in the fairy tale about creationism


Isn't that lucky for you. Without them and the diddling priests you would have nothing to say. (Incidentally nearly 200 child abusers were rounded up today and if there was a priest among them we would have heard by now.)

And you don't say what your creationists believe and you don't distinguish between actual belief and a pretence of it for personal reasons.

You just don't like the rules they live by, or try to, for your own personal reasons and it has nothing to do with science or misleading the kids at all. You don't know any science, a good thing in your case, and you are in favour of misleading kids because everybody is. They would burn the ******* schools down if we didn't mislead them and they got their **** together on networking sites like Mr Obama did and the rebels in the Middle East.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 06:11 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I hope you don't think that we all think you are a scientist because you quote Einstein in your siggy line saying something really stupid.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 06:16 pm
@spendius,
spendi, I never claimed to be a scientist. Your imagination is working over time.

We see you quoting many writers, and we don't even think you are a writer. Your prose lacks originality and quality.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 06:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I do my best.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 08:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Joe nAtion and Edgar Blythe are much better writers than spendi because their prose style isnt so damned "forced". Spendi always sounds like hes delivering a watermelon out his ass.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 08:34 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman, Excellent description; I was wondering how best to describe spendi's prose, but you beat me to it.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 08:36 pm
@farmerman,
I would need LSD or something even stronger to be able to emulate spendius. But most of my posts are not intended to be literary masterpieces anyway.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 08:37 pm
@edgarblythe,
It won't matter what drugs and quantity I take, I'll never be able to replicate spendi's prose.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 05:24 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
But most of my posts are not intended to be literary masterpieces anyway.
Yes but ALL of your posts are concerned with communicating with your readers. Thats not too high on spendis list of "needs and wants"
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 05:43 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
Quote:
He knows how to cut and paste from creationist web sites.


Do you have any hope that he will ever run those posts through Snopes or FactCheck first? Why he doesn't suspect something is amiss is a mystery.


His "contributions" here are motivated by political doctrine, not by either science nor even common sense.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 06:11 am
I cannot imagine standing in the pub talking to three blokes who spout the kind of infantile tripe the last five posts on this thread consist of. They don't mean a damn thing. Anybody could say those things about anything. They are "worthless foam from the mouth". And these guys don't seem to know it. It isn't a one off by a long shot. They must talk like that all the time as a way of life. Maybe nobody dare tell them in the mileux they choose to circulate in.

Talk about trolling.
MJA
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 09:08 am
Evolution theory is a creation theory that unfortunately is not entirely true.
Rather than a linear or even divine path I think life travels full circle and simply and freely goes its own Way.

=
MJA

wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 09:16 am
ILLINOIS UPDATE
Quote:
Stevenson candidate talks about the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution
(By Russell Lissau, The Daily Herald, March 17, 2011)

In public forums and other gatherings, the candidates for the Stevenson High School District 125 board have been asked repeatedly if they believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science classrooms.

All seven candidates have firmly said the religious belief has no place in science classes. But one, Charles Cardella, has regularly used a three-word phrase that has been at the heart of the creationism-vs.-evolution debate for years.

Although denying creationism has a role in science classes, Cardella has said teachers should instruct students about the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. He used the phrase in February when talking to the Daily Herald about the issue, and again Tuesday night during a public candidate forum at Stevenson High.

“I believe students understanding both Darwin's theory and also the strengths and weaknesses of that theory is important, based on what we've learned here just in the last 100 years,” Cardella said at the gathering.

When asked about the phrase Wednesday morning, Cardella said he believes “any type of scientific theory” has strengths and weaknesses. Science has changed since Darwin's time, he said.

“Why shouldn't students be informed — taught — about what we've learned (since then)?” he said. “Not everything in the theory is right. Not everything in the theory is bulletproof.”

But some say the phrase — which dates back to the 1990s — is used by creationists to undermine the teaching of the theory that man evolved over the millennia.

“It means that they want to teach creationism,” said Josh Rosenau, programs and policy director for the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit group that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Four seats on the District 125 board, which primarily serves the Lincolnshire and Buffalo Grove areas, will be decided April 5.

Cardella is running on a slate with two other candidates — Kim Brady and Kathy Powell — for seats on the board. The other four candidates — incumbents Bruce Lubin, Terry Moons and Merv Roberts and newcomer David Weisberg — are running as a separate group.

Cardella was the only candidate espousing the “strengths and weaknesses” phrase during the Feb. 25 Daily Herald interview and at Tuesday's forum. That wording used to appear on his campaign group's website in an explanation about their stance on the issue, but has since been removed.

It was removed, Cardella said, because he and his slate mates were being asked about it so often at candidate coffees and other events.

Cardella said the phrase originated “from inside my campaign.” He said he and the other candidates thought it was a simple way to explain that scientific theories have strong and weak points.

He said he didn't know the phrase was controversial when he started using it.

But the phrase has raised eyebrows.

It was at the heart of a long fight over science curriculum in Texas that ended in 2009 when the state education board there eliminated a provision requiring teachers and students to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. It's surfaced in other states, too, Rosenau said.

Although the phrase has been used in some legislation to refer to scientific theories in general, it's generally only practically applied to evolution, Rosenau said.

“What does it mean to say that gravity has weaknesses?” he said. “What does it mean to say that cell theory has weaknesses?”

Cardella denied his use of the phrase serves as a backdoor approach to teaching creationism in class. On Wednesday, he pledged to stop using the phrase publicly.

“That'll drop from the coffees, I guarantee you,” he said.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 10:06 am
@wandeljw,
Have they ever identified what those "strengths and weaknesses" were? Nice wording with nothing to support it; just words. That's what religion does to people; they become more ignorant and aggressive.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 10:13 am
@MJA,
You're deluded. You certainly know nothing of science.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 10:16 am
@spendius,
spendi, Rather than use ad hominems, why not challenge what has been said? "Foaming at the mouth?" Is that the best you can do? Your intelligence quotient is lost; you should know better.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 07/18/2025 at 06:18:05