61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2011 03:51 pm
@spendius,
First, you have to prove it. Second, you never will.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2011 06:33 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Mine are based on your inability to respond to different issues intelligently; it's an addendum, not the main message - like yours.
Have you ever tried your hand at selling used cars ?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2011 06:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
they keep believing in false information
Are you seriously saying that you are so accurate, that correct in everything you do, that if people dont agree with you they are stupid ? Perhaps you could call the UN and tell them how to achieve world peace.....if they dont listen to you then you can call them stupid .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2011 06:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
You need to add what was said before that post.
I have read post after post where you have done nothing but attack Spendi . No facts, no addition to the debate, just bile and bitterness cleverly described by the Latin, ad hominem .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2011 06:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
First, you have to prove it. Second, you never will.
No to you...that goes without saying....when was the last time you took on new information and rethought your opinion ? I'll get you started ....19--.....fill in the blanks .
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 07:02 pm
Latest Challenges...
Quote:
"There's been a rising tide of not just evolution denial, but science denial all the way around," Robert Luhn of the National Center for Science Education wrote in an e-mail to Wired.com. "Creationists and their kin are attacking global-warming science, plate tectonics, the Big Bang and on and on."
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2011 08:58 pm
@rosborne979,
People often deny/ridicule what they do not understand.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2011 05:08 am
@plainoldme,
I think they understand those things enough to know that they are recent fads brought on by improved instrument readings and are alien to the 2, or 4, million years of human nature's processes and, as such, dangerous to them in the hands of amateurs who fancy they can use them for making invidious distinctions to their own advantage.

The three carefully selected items, others being covered by "on and on", are really very simple to understand and can only be parleyed into personal excellence before a rather uneducated audience as ros invariably assumes us to be. Most of the mantras chanted have been learned while sitting on the arse chomping munchies watching selected TV programmes which have been expertly crafted to **** their heads off their shoulders.

That science is a danger to humanity has been hotly debated for over 2000 years. See the persecutions of Pythagoreans and Socrates. See the nuclear reactor accidents. See the decontamination of astronauts which admits of the risk. See the debates over food additives. See the manipulation of minds with moving talking pictures.

Science is a tool. That is all it is.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2011 05:14 am
@spendius,
Who is for granting science carte blanche to rule every aspect of our lives.

If not then what checks are proposed to limit science's formidable power?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2011 05:37 am
@spendius,
We See that cooking is similarly potentially dangerous to humans , the safety of which has been discussed for several millenia also. Does that imply that we stop eating? No, we develop safety protocols.

Your stretches for some arguments are no longer even humorous, they are becoming somewhat simple-minded.
I shant ask my normal question of you on a Monday morning.
wandeljw
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2011 07:21 am
LOUISIANA UPDATE
Quote:
Louisiana Coalition for Science Supports SB 70 to Repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act
(Louisiana Coalition for Science, Press Release, April 18, 2011)

In solidarity with Baton Rouge Magnet High School senior Zachary Kopplin’s effort to repeal the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act, the Louisiana Coalition for Science supports Senator Karen Carter Peterson’s bill, SB 70, which will repeal the law in its entirety. In the interest of Louisiana public school students, the legislature should pass the bill and Gov. Jindal should sign it.

Under the guise of promoting “critical thinking,” a creationist code term, the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) permits public school science teachers to use creationist materials to promote “critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

The LSEA was written by the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), a Focus on the Family affiliate that promotes creationism as part of its mission “to present biblical principles in the centers of influence.” The LFF partnered with the Discovery Institute (DI), a Seattle, Washington, think tank that promotes intelligent design creationism nationwide. DI helped write the LSEA to reflect its “Model Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution,” a stealth creationism statute that DI has promoted in almost a dozen states since 2008. So far, no other state has adopted such legislation.

The LSEA has had negative effects both on Louisiana and on public school science education policy.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2011 07:32 am
@farmerman,
I asked you what "safety protocols".

Had we been on a platform and I had asked that question I think your reply would have caused everybody in the hall to look at the ceiling rolling their eyes. Even if I was skenning drunk.

What is "simple minded" (an ad hom.) about asking that question? Are we to give Science a free hand to do what it will? Odd you have failed to answer it don't you think? Perhaps others will.

Let's test their nerve eh? Your's has failed obviously.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2011 07:58 am
@wandeljw,
Mrs Carter Peterson can be seen on Google deploying a blatant non sequitur to explain the defeat of an anti-smoking measure she proposed. Prehaps if she loses this one it will be due to sun spots.

She's for Big Government. She's also a shaker in two Christian organisations.

The contents of a press release from the Louisiana Coalition for Science, whatever that means, can be predicted with accuracy.

The scientific Biblical principle that "all is vanity" is obviously not to the liking of the LCS.

Is Zachary Kopplin acting as a private citizen or as a Baton Rouge Magnet High School senior?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2011 10:10 am
@wandeljw,
Well, I admit to being wrong on this one. I assumed that, armed with scienctific evidence, a biology teacher (assuming that they were objective and not agendized by anything other than facts), would teach "critical thinking" to show how there isnt anything that comp[etes with the scientific conclusions. (Especially since all the indivual components of creationist "scientific thought" are clearly bogus).
Id not figured on the number of biology teachers who were creationists. I cannot fathom where some peoples minds go after college.Do they merely get an education so they can serve as a "plant" in the real world?
wandeljw
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2011 11:26 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Well, I admit to being wrong on this one. I assumed that, armed with scienctific evidence, a biology teacher (assuming that they were objective and not agendized by anything other than facts), would teach "critical thinking" to show how there isnt anything that comp[etes with the scientific conclusions. (Especially since all the indivual components of creationist "scientific thought" are clearly bogus).
Id not figured on the number of biology teachers who were creationists. I cannot fathom where some peoples minds go after college.Do they merely get an education so they can serve as a "plant" in the real world?


You have made a good distinction in scenarios. A good teacher may use the different viewpoints to show how one is better supported by evidence. On the other hand, a teacher with an agenda can teach their agenda with impunity under the current Louisiana law.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2011 11:35 am
@wandeljw,
Well, kicking and screaming, Ive just added "CRITICAL THINKING" to my growing list of code words. (Sorta like "States rights")
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2011 01:30 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I cannot fathom where some peoples minds go after college.


They usually develop.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2011 01:45 pm
@spendius,
Yes, spendi, they develop into beer sop - like yours.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2011 02:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Not all of them ci. I'm unusual. No matter how many exams I passed I could never leave my old mates most of whom were not very good at passing exams. And who were'nt past taking the piss out of me.

You can't talk cricket, football, horses, women and politics with the average teacher. I know. They read Autocar and Which? Learned tomes about improved methods of dealing with the monsters in their charge. Politics is out because their heads are in the teacher's shed on that subject. They border on fascism though when spending their wages.

fm doesn't understand. He's been in a geology enclave where they all think alike about religious beliefs. fm gives a good flavour of the tone of it.

It's different in a school. There are experienced teachers as well as a few just out of college wagging their tales and looking for some empty heads to spout their idealistic nonsense to. They get defenestered. They develop as I said. Evolve sort of. In a geology department there's comforts. No pressure to evolve. The monsters have been sieved. Catalytically cracked with eager beavers of the lighter fractions tapped off. It fossilises. Set in stone. Bobby Jindal's off his head becomes a fact.

We can't have the destiny of a superpower being determined by some readings off a dating machine. Which we didn't see. Being told what they are is our role.

Science is a Church. Jealous of its position. And it has cults too. Geology is one. Psychology is another. They don't always see eye to eye. Same with Economics. Sociology. Each doing its own house style of Critical Thinking. Bombarding TV production companies with ideas for programmes.

What the beer sop route does is cause attention to be given to things that are interesting rather than things one is pointed at.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2011 03:33 pm
@spendius,
That's why your observations are not accurate; you arrive at conclusions about geologists that are also untrue of other scientist types. They are not the same; some can even be pro-creationism. You miss the boat on this one too!
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 07/14/2025 at 05:19:38