Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Perhaps, farmerman frequents classier establishments than you do.

No wonder you detest edumacation! Goobledeegook!

Are there elementary eugenics? Your use of the word advance implies there are elementary eugenics, possibly mid-range eugenics as well.

Actually, spendi is showing us his ignorance. Im going to propose that he spent time looking up eugenics and got a wiki that was about the AMreican EUgenics Society. The purpose of the AES was to "advance Eugenics" in society. (Its a verb, not an adjective)

OOPS spendi, yer pants are down about yer knees.

Advanced Eugenics Indeed.

I bow down to you, farmerman. I am not worthy, to steal a phrase. That is brilliant!

His spleen will be vented upon you. You are the one who ridiculed his "Advanced eugenics" as compared to "elementary eugenics". Yep, I predict that his firt post will be a verbal flaying of you and how its obvious that his superiorness is being wasted on the rest of us schmegegees.

BRILLIANT ???!!?

Yes--there are elementary eugenics. Like when you are asked for a date and you check out what sort of car the bloke drives or which district he lives in. The cut of his jib so to speak. The mother of the heroine in Titanic was trying to apply mid-range eugenics.

Advanced eugenics are when blood samples and tissue matching take place after application forms are submitted to the PCC. (The Population Control Centre). Aldous Huxley had to invent his "baby in a bottle" fantasy in order to avoid the more distasteful aspects of AEs which the reading public were unprepared for. I daresay you still are in 2011 pom. Never mind though.

One might say that elementary eugenics are what Jane Austen was on about. But that's old fashioned. Government controlled sperm banks are more up to date.

I used the term "advanced eugenics" so that even dimwits would know that I was implying "elementary eugenics" and all the range in between. I hope you didn't think it was a silly error on my part.

Oh!! You're poor students. I really do feel sorry for them.

No, no no fm. No. Your proposition is a figment of your own fertile self-congratulation faculty. You drawing a conclusion from it is proof of your infantile mentality and the total absence of any scientific sense. It's a nonsekky. And a very simple one.

I've never heard of the AES. I assumed the US had something like it as we have here. I think the only serious objection to such entities is based on Darwinian evolution.

The best argument for being an IDer is that you, pom,ci. wande, ros, rl and Setanta are anti-IDers. It's a clincher. Goodstyle.

See what I mean?

If I thought only you schmegegees were reading here I would have given up years ago. I have residual faith in the idea that some Americans are intelligent. You lot are not.

see?. If nothing else (like intelligible) he is certainly predictible.

Bernard Shaw, Nobel Laureate and Oscar winner, and best guide to nerveless (nothing on Ignore) advanced eugenics, wrote-



Which I think is Lamarckian. But it doesn't matter what Shaw believed. What matters is the consequences of the belief just as what mattered to Aztec beliefs was the consequences of believing in a god which was insatiable for blood sacrifice. The consequences of believing Shaw was wrong is the first, and only, matter worth considering. Nothing else is of the slightest significance.

Judge Jones never took evidence from anything like that. Ignore is one of the key components of the anti-IDer's lifestyle and thinking. The other is "being wonderful" which, it seems to me, is by far the largest occupational category in the US economy. It is here too but not yet quite so pronounced.

When Galileo's science was challenged by the Church were there any fears in the population that human activity might put at risk all life on the planet? The fear exists now. And we know the source of it. Science.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have post Galileo science. It has its attractions. But the hubris of science should try taking account of that risk and learn a little humility. I realise that it has hard to do when "being wonderful" is the only occupation of the middle classes, for reasons Veblen explained so thoroughly, but an effort ought to be made imo in view of the obvious scientific fact that the middle class consists entirely of eating and shitting machines chomping through the nutrient bed. The upper and lower classes are well aware of that scientific fact. They don't do Ignore and build specious theories on the minute parts of life they don't have on Ignore and which are carefully selected to assist members of the middle class in "being wonderful".

In fact, membership of the middle class might be determined by the amount of items of intellectual wisdom kept religiously on Ignore. The idea that any science is involved is a joke as laughable as that patriotism can be measured by the amount of flag waving.

BTW--Shaw gave away the Nobel cash. Having married a very rich lady he could afford to. And he produced no verifiable offspring.

Rubbish ! Everyone knows my genius is the result of being his love child !

Granville-Barker was the prime suspect Io. But it was rumour.

Shaw died in 1950 in his mid 90s and he was randy enough and knew enough fawning young ladies to make your claim feasible as long as you are over 65. I don't think the technology for storing sperm was in use at the time.

Micheal Holroyd's brilliant 3 volume biography is a proper educational tool.

Aha ! But you forget H G Wells invented the Time Machine in 1895....55 years before Shaw died....and I forget where I was going with that....maybe I am over 65 ???

I should have made clear that I meant the above for those enlightened viewers who don't equate learning with being instructed by fm or pom types who have to hand out certificates of excellence like confetti in order to avoid being disparaged. It was for those who can learn on their own account.

It deals very thoroughly with the tactics of "permeation" (or entryism) which is what is being attempted by anti-IDers although here the attempt is at the 2+2=4 stage which is as easy to see through as a freshly cleaned window.

I found Wells unreadable on the principle Henry Fielding elucidates in Tom Jones. Which is that any coincidence is okay so long as it could happen but that what can't happen is for juveniles.

fm and pom--can you explain why it goes dark at night? I can. Can you explain why the matter baffled scientists until Hubble explained it and Einstein had to ditch his cosmological constant which had been a mathematical trick to cover over a discrepancy.

Have you any evidence that the solar system is not the centre of the universe?