Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@Ionus,

Thats what Ive always called this moron"THE MASTER OF THE BLEEDIN OBVIOUS"

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Do you ever realize how unintelligible your crap is?

Hilarious ! You try to obfuscate any teaching post with as much pseudo-science and abbreviations and lack of explanations as possible . If people dont understand what you write, then you must be cleverer than them, right ? Wrong . It shows the chip on your shoulder is compounded with a huge dose of mid-life crises .

Spendi can associate several things at once and it is enjoyable to follow his thinking as it connects various arguments . That you dont know any of his references might suggest the problem lies in your lack of a general education . Admittedly, he connects things at quite a pace but its fun to think fast, isnt it ? It is for me .....

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Spendi can associate several things at once and it is enjoyable to follow his thinking as it connects various arguments . That you dont know any of his references might suggest the problem lies in your lack of a general education

Thats why you are easily impressed. There are few if any connections that spendi's made. (With the exception of his eternal hardon for Veblen, all his references were started with me on totally different posts. Note how he tries to bring Judge Jones, Galilei, LAmarck and DArwin together. Hes merely emgaging in drunken glossolalia. However, if it amuses you, just continue. Its not necessarily my job to clue you in on your buddy's writing skills(or lack thereof)

Quote:

he connects things at quite a pace but its fun to think fast, isnt it ? It is for me .....

For his more verbose and unintelligible posts, he usually takes up to two hours to compose. Thats hardly quick thinking. As far as you?? HA, you aspire to high viscosity thinking.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Thats why you are easily impressed.

I have yet to be impressed by you .

Quote:

As far as you?? HA, you aspire to high viscosity thinking.

As usual, your posts are so full of attempts to be clever that fail miserably I cant help but wonder what your students must think of you . Dont stay in the profession too much longer, you are making a fool of yourself in front of the next generation peer group .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

The last too I should think but they didn't laugh because he was in control of the certificates they wanted so they could use them to charge us more than they are worth.

1 Reply

@spendius,

All that a professional degree can confer is MINIMAL competence. THe really great students surpass their teachers and expand our knowledge base. You cant really teach, you can only expose a student to, and propose explanations.

Im reading the work of D'Arcy Thompson and his use of topology to expand our perceptions of evolutionary mechanics. His teachers were unaware of DArcy's visual mind and Thompson just came up with the topological expansions because he was trained as a watercolorist. (In that respect he was very much like Ernst Haeckel)

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

s--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.

Why do I think this "man" was drooling while he wrote this drivel?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Of course, he is predictable. If there were a world olympics of rudeness, spendius and H2Oman would be finalists.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

There are few if any connections that spendi's made.

This bears repeating.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Quote:

Why do I think this "man" was drooling while he wrote this drivel?

That's obvious pom. You're in denial of ever stooping to such tactics. Which we experienced men find very amusing. It helps you to remain in denial if you invent fantastical and feverish assertions about others. Which is amusing too.

You do know the opening lines of Pride and Prejudice don't you? And that's a sweet way of putting it but quite clear nevertheless.

There's certainly nothing to drool about in it. It is bad news for men.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

Many of the old heads of biology have been soundly refuted in recent years that I feel some of them require rehabilitation in our scholarly minds.
My first candidate is Ernst HAeckel. Popular belief is that his views on embryology recapitulating "phylogeny" have been all debunked. That is not true. Theyve been revised inconcert with our present undertsandings of embryology.
( when does the human embryo transform from a simple "Hollow tube" (mouth gut cloaca), and become the higher mammal embryo. Haeckel wasnt wrong, he was just pointed incorrectly in some of his conclusions.

Haeckel was trained as an artist too. He was best known for his complex biological taxanomic illustrations. (MAnuy of which we still use today)
Heres a poster of what looks l;ike echinoids or tunicates(not sure).
These are really works of patient observation

http://mygermanyblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/haeckel_big.jpg

1 Reply

@farmerman,

"Our scholarly minds" eh? Have you invested in some pink lighting in your mirrored room fm?

That's what I mean when a confetti certificate goes to the head and renders you into a swoon of self satisfaction to compensate for the scientific fact that you are a cousin, with DNA proof, of the "Hollow tube" (mouth gut cloaca) mammal. And help repress it.

0 Replies

ILLINOIS UPDATE

Quote:

Science teacher who taught creationism keeps his job
(BY STEPHANIE KOHL AND DAN ROZEK, Chicago Sun-Times, March 23, 2011)

A Libertyville High School science teacher who referenced creationism in a biology class will not be fired, school officials announced Tuesday night.

Teacher Beau Schaefer, described as a “longstanding District 128 educator,’’ discussed creationism in a classroom lesson about evolution, officials said, but he has been instructed not to do so in the future and he will not lose his job.

In a statement read at school board meeting Tuesday, Libertyville Supt. Prentiss Lea said “the United States Supreme Court and several other federal court decisions have found that creationism may not be referenced or taught in public school science classrooms.’’

Lea said the teacher “cooperated fully’’ with officials investigating the allegations, and he has been told not to discuss creationism in the future.

“We will not be recommending his termination as this is remediable behavior,” Lea said.

Dozens of students, parents and residents attended Tuesday night’s meeting after atheist activist Rob Sherman, of Buffalo Grove, originally brought the incident to the board’s attention last month.

Duncan Millar, a Libertyville High School parent, said the teacher violated several codes and laws and called for his firing.

Kurt Close, a 2008 Libertyville High School graduate, said not only is the teaching of creationism unacceptable, so is the time that was lost while creationism was discussed.

“Even if it’s about a debate between the two [creationism and evolution], I think it complicates what should be conveyed with taxpayer dollars,” Close said.

But Greg and Kathy Krause, who are also parents of students in the district, said they have no problem with the mention of creationism in the classroom.

The students “can make their own decision,” said Kathy Krause. “Why can’t they make their own decision? What is the big fear?’’

One student in Schaefer’s class, who asked not to be named, said Schaefer explained creationism was not a scientific theory.

“Mr. Schaefer is my teacher, and I don’t think it’s right that people should be mad at him,” the student said, adding she did not want to see him lose his job.

Sherman said he wasn’t seeking to have Schaefer fired, but said he wanted the science instructor barred from teaching creationism in his biology classes.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled creationism is a religious, not a scientific theory, and shouldn’t be taught alongside evolutionary theory in science classrooms.

“Creationism isn’t science. You don’t teach it in a science class,” Sherman said.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled creationism is a religious, not a scientific theory, and shouldn’t be taught alongside evolutionary theory in science classrooms.

Which means not in any classrooms as this proves--

Quote:

Kurt Close, a 2008 Libertyville High School graduate, said not only is the teaching of creationism unacceptable, so is the time that was lost while creationism was discussed.

And so it is from Kurt's point of view. But he excuses himself from explaining why time is lost in teaching creationism. It's just a gut feeling he is going on. A sort of flounce. It is time lost and tax dollars wasted because it is time lost and tax dollars wasted because it is time lost --------------. And he's on the school board!!!!???? Blimey. Play truant lads. These people are intoxicated with an illusion of self-importance brought on by a certificate officially recognising it and they want you all to have one like theirs so that its validity is confirmed and you can be rendered as barmy as they are so that they won't stand out so much. But you might get a pay rise.

It is disingenous, to be polite about it, to have the word "science" qualifying which classrooms when it means in practice all classrooms. It is condescending and insulting as well. The idea behind the dirty trick is that we all agree that creationism has no place in science classrooms but do not all agree that it has no place in any classroom but we are being kidded into accepting that that is what will happen without us noticing.

And it's obvious and begs the question---why do those on that side of the debate stoop to lying, condescending insults? If they don't know that that is what they are they are unfit to be offering advice on how the education of 50 million kids should be organised.

It wouldn't be so bad if teaching evolution in schools was any use. Anybody who needs it will probably be ahead of the teachers anyway and it doesn't take much time or effort to be fully conversant with it if it is needed after school is over with. The idea that American science will suffer because evolution is not taught in schools is not only ludicrous but betrays a lack of knowledge about what modern science is.

"Teaching evolution" is just a wedge to get pre-marital sex, adultery, divorce, abortion and homesexuality approved by a process of attrition involving disingenuous, condescending insults and getting some silly ******'s name in the papers. And the teaching of it does not imply the learning of it. That it does is taken for granted here and it is another illusion.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

"Teaching evolution" is just a wedge to get pre-marital sex, adultery, divorce, abortion and homesexuality approved by a process of attrition involving disingenuous, condescending insults and getting some silly ******'s name in the papers.

This represents a condensed version of every point spendius has ever made on this subject!

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

It shows how totally he has misread the people and the science involved. It also shows he will say anything, even if he knows it to be false, to disrupt any threads concerned with evolution and or atheism.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

But wande is correct ed. Albeit a little belatedly. It is the text beneath the bullshit about science, evolution and militant atheism. The spring of the action. Possibly, as with most such springs of action, it is long forgotten. You need Freud to explain that and he was science mad. He thought he was at least.

I understand why you want the bullshit level to not look like what it actually is. But it's no reason to expect A2K viewers to buy it. To do so suggests you recognise no limits to your will. The trouble is that there are limits to it.

1 Reply

@spendius,

"Teaching evolution" is a euphemism ed. If a thread opened up on "biting the dust" we would not expect it to be about people who gnawed at the dry earth. You're being taken for a ride using cheap flattery unless you are in favour of scientific eugenics. And nothing else. The stud farms are. So are the experimental agricultural establishments. It's nothing new. The application to humans is only logical if we are merely one offshoot of a common ancestor.

Not that it matters to you. Or me. We are too old. We can afford to indulge ourselves playing with ideas. Even dangerous ones.

It was on CBS News last night how many thousands of tons of spent fuel rods are half-lifing in ponds across the US. Mainly in the east. We can afford to play with that. What about when it's millions of tons and it becomes big business stopping it from melting down. Who cares? We'll all be dead.

1 Reply

@spendius,

When the nuclear option was sold to us it was on the basis of it being clean and eventually free energy. They were euphemisms.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

spendi just loves to talk about women and sex in every way shape and form. He's a slave to his own imagination.

2 Replies

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know