Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@panzade,

Good article, Pan . . . not only does it show the poor state of science education, it also shows the end result of the creationist agenda, and the price we pay for this hysterical, religiously-motivated interference in education. Most christians are not this goofy--they need to get involved in the solution to these failures.

Again, good article, and thanks.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

I forgot even the "electric Universe guys" have a theory about what is gravity.
They arent able to evidence their "belief " any better though

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Not to mention the ESA would be appalled if they knew they're in any way supposed to be associated with any "electric universe". Their new gravity map:

http://www.spacenews.com/images/Goce-Geoid_ESA02.jpg

http://www.spacenews.com/earth_observation/110401-mission-extension-likely-goce.html

1 Reply

@High Seas,

EDIT I should have added features on our planet are exaggerated by a factor of 10,000 to display differential gravity gradients - that's places where a ball wouldn't roll if placed on the surface of earth or water because even though the surface is higher or lower the gravity is the same so the ball must stay put.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

farmerman, Thanks for explaining how we should look at scientific findings as "preponderance of the evidence" up to that point in time, and not beyond a reasonable doubt, because even evidence can be proven wrong.

Evidence is never wrong - it can however be superseded by new evidence as our instruments and our mathematical constructs improve over time.

0 Replies

TENNESSEE UPDATE

Quote:

House OKs bill that protects teaching alternative theories
(By Tom Humphrey, Knoxville News-Sentinel, April 8, 2011)

By a 70-23 vote, the House approved and sent to the Senate on Thursday a bill that protects teachers from discipline if they discuss alternatives to prevailing scientific theories, notably including evolution.

Sponsor Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville, said the purpose is to promote "critical thinking" in science classes. Critics contend the measure (HB368) is a backdoor means of teaching creationism reminiscent of the 1920s Tennessee law that prohibited teaching evolution, which led to the trial and conviction of a Dayton teacher, John T. Scopes.

House Speaker Emeritus Jimmy Naifeh, D-Covington, had referred to the measure as "the monkey bill" earlier. Dunn said after passage that critics were practicing "monkey see, monkey do" by believing and repeating unwarranted characterizations of the measure as an attack on evolution and promotion of religion in the classroom.

The bill provoked extensive debate on the House floor, with Republicans describing critics of the measure as "intellectual bullies."

The debate at times did get into religion, though Dunn noted that the bill includes a sentence declaring the proposed new law shall not be used to promote religion.

Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains, quoted Albert Einstein as saying: "A little knowledge would turn your head to atheism, while a broader knowledge would turn your head to Christianity."

"Our whole state will be better if we have children using critical thinking about how we got here and not just accepting a theory that has never been proven," said Rep. Jeremy Faison, R-Cosby.

Democrats questioned the measure at length. Rep. Jeanne Richardson, D-Memphis, suggested the bill is telling teachers what to teach in science and questioned whether math, physical education and history would be next.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Mike Turner of Nashville also asked whether the bill would allow teachers to promote creation theories promoted by non-Christian religions.

1 Reply

@panzade,

Quote:

"If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church.

That's disingenuous pan. It assumes there is no controversy regarding what is "taught" and how and by whom and that is not the case otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing the matter. Does it not give you pause for thought that we are not discussing the vast bulk of science but are exercising ourselves over this matter of evolution. It is a special case. And has been since 1859. To try to pretend that there is no valid reason for that is naive.

It also glosses over that there are other matters which are not taught in public schools and which some would say a similar statement could be made about.

And to make them a crime would require legislation and thus draw attention to them. The reason, I presume, for having school boards and state control of education is that they provide a responsiveness at provincial levels to various concerns. To legislate for the teaching of evolution in public schools would require a national control in Washington and the states and school boards being reduced to cyphers or being abandoned. A Soviet style education system in other words.

Let us see the guidelines for teaching evolution and some idea of who is going to impose them and supervise them.

We do ban books and many other things. That is not due to "ignorance and fanaticism". It is due to a general consensus worked out and agreed over centuries. Schools are "before the watershed" all the time.

I think the statements of the "great man" are complete drivel and would not stand up to serious examination. Nobody can accuse Western societies of not bringing any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. What utter tripe. We are the most enlightened, intelligent and cultured race that the world has ever seen. By a distance too great to be quantified.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

Having reservations about the teaching of evolution has nothing to do with the promotion of creationism or any other 'ism. It's a nonsense and anybody who thinks otherwise has no idea what critical thinking is no matter how often they flatter themselves by dropping the phrase in conversation.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

try to apply the "Science of Creationism" to come up with any applications".

Faustian western culture. Will that do as an application? Just because you don't understand how it was done is a function of your limited education and we are not going into bat on the basis of that. I sincerely hope.

You are playing word games fm and they are ones with skirts around their piano legs. Do you blush if somebody says "knicker elastic"?

1 Reply

I heard a neat phrase on Newsnight for what I've been calling "confetti certificates" . "Cheap and cheerful degrees".

I'm all in favour of them of course. Cheap and cheerful will do for me.

But when they go to the recipient's head and create the illusion that they are above average in intelligence, and thus deserving of higher wages and more power to give orders, we have got a serious problem. An economic/military one.

There are a number of sociological and psychological factors involved which are easy to grasp by anybody with a knowledge of educational statistics and a level of honesty which I must admit is quite rare. There's not much of that on this thread. They are understandably on Ignore.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Faustian western culture. Will that do as an application?

as much as "Vampires" explain serum content.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendi, Please explain how that works? Science stands on its own, while your so-called critical thinking has no basis to support it. Quit making accusations that only self-deprecate; it makes you look more foolish. Your arguments rests on non sequiturs and ad hominems, and have no value.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

as much as "Vampires" explain serum content.

As I said fm--your education isn't up to it and all you can do is sneer. Read Spengler. You know nothing about science. It's a pose and you have learned how to impress some people with word formulations.

You start from the wrong place you see. Try starting from the proposition that the theologians knew what they were doing and work your way up. Once you start with them not knowing what they were doing and being a bunch of free-loading superstitious fools you can only end up where you are now and so can every other silly ****** who starts with such a ludicrous premiss.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spend, Your mention of "word formulations" is the only value of entertainment we get from your posts. They are without much foundation except that you are able to name some classical writers of old which has no bearing on the discussion at hand. You just like to pop them into your discourse to show you are well read, but other than that, they are meaningless to the topics under discussion.

Your constant challenge, "why don't you read so and so" to get a glimpse of what you are trying to say has no value. You must present what is of value in the post from all those authors you name by their relevance. Otherwise, it's just showmanship on your part.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It's bloody elementary ci. that having reservations about teaching evolution to imprisoned schoolkids has no necessary connection with the promotion of any other damned thing there is. If you have found, or read about in our "objective" quotes that wande trolls the thread with, somebody who is against teaching evolution and in favour of teaching creationism in science classes then I refer you to Setanta's definitive post on the Atheism thread. There you will find the simple and obvious argument that no conclusion can be drawn from what you have found, however slurpy to your ego it is, and it arouses the suspicion that you only found it because you knew where to look.

It's a straw man. And you have been relying on it too long. One might easily be an atheist and against teaching evolution to kids. Why can't you wait until the system has selected students who might find the subject useful at 18. Or 21.

But we know the answer to that don't we? Yes indeed we do. It has nothing to do with evolution. It is about discrediting the Church and it's teachings on masturbation, pre-marital sex, adultery, divorce, homosexuality, abortion and eugenics. And anything connected with the White Coats tinkering about with reproduction. Your straw men have their own straw men.

Keep clear of naked flames.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Obviously ci. if my posts are meaningless to you then they are meaningless to you. As braille presumably is. Or shorthand. (a neat juxto which no doubt is meaningless to you.)

But that doesn't mean they are meaningless.

Do you seriously think I could present Spengler better than Spengler did? People are still trying to work it all out. My nutshell version is that once civilisation moves into the henpecked husband phase it is fucked.

0 Replies

@spendius,

There is no other damned thing with science; it stands on its own. It's based on what we deem to be the overriding evidence with the tools that are available to us to determine certain conclusions about our environment - until they are revised with more evidence to the contrary.

FYI, it's not about ego as you opine; it's about understanding our environment to the best of our knowledge as they exist today.

Your ad hominems falls flat on its own weight.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I give up.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Good for you, and thank you!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Well--any answer I provide will just get the same response from you. I'm at a loss as to how you can manage a conversation of any sort.

1 Reply

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know