Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

I didn't know you were such an expert on the educational system in the United Kingdom. I will not take any lectures on my English from someone who cannot use the apostrophe correctly. There is no place for the teaching of Creationism in a Science class. Creationism should be left to RE lessons, and even then taken with a pinch of salt, it's so ridiculous even the Pope doesn't believe in it. None of it stands up to analysis. You can believe what you want, but if you can't believe in the flaming obvious, your opinion shouldn't be taken seriously.

It doesn't matter to me fm. I'm too old to bother about it on my own account. It will see me out. It's the lads of the future I'm batting for. I'm free of all intellectual encumbrances. The clanking chains of your's can be heard everytime you put finger to key.

I do not ascribe the loss of faith to advances in technology. I ascribe it to natural causes when an endogenous intra-mundane worldview gains ground based solely on profit. How can it not result in the triumph of the quick-witted, the cunning and the ruthless?

The technology is only the new backdrop in front of which the natural causes perform. They perform whatever the backdrop is. Constitutions and technology are just a new stage.

The "the rampant excesses that represented lifestyles of the "Gilded Age" and "The Age of the Victorians" as well as the excesses of unbridled catechism" have nothing to do with the next 100 years. That you continually refer backwards is a mark of the bankruptcy of your position. A resignation really. The moral case against it. We make the future. We only read off nature to some extent because it's early days.



What sheer bald-face arrogance. One might imagine Big Brother saying that.

If you look at the post to which you take such exception, I said such groups were TRYING to sneak creationism through the back door. I never said they had succeeded. That's why I know about it.

Well izzy--I have never said that Creationism should be taught in science classes. So what you are ranting about I don't know. Address what you have to say about that matter to those who want to teach Creationism in science classes. It has nothing to do with me. I would teach voodoo in philosophy classes if the voters voted for it. The argument is about teaching evolution in Louisiana public schools. And it's utterly ridiculous to call what the voters do "sneaky".

And if I did make a mistake with an apostrophe, which I don't think I did, it does nothing to reveal my bias and lack of objectivity as your use of "sneaky" does. That you equate a typo with a psychological giveaway is a mark of your desperation. I could tell you a lot about yourself from the usage of "sneaky" and you could tell me nothing about myself from an apostrophe typo. If there is no apostrophe typo I could tell you even more.

How can they "sneak" it through the "back door" when it's all out in the open and has been for a long time? If you know what is being sneaked through the back door I'm sure every newspaper editor in London will pay attention to you.

Oh dear. You're talking about teaching in Louisiana. I was talking about sneaking creationism through the back door in the UK, as per my reply to farmerman. Try looking at a map, I think you'll find the UK doesn't come under the jurisdiction of the State of Louisiana, or any of the States for that matter.

Yes--the topic was Louisiana. I didn't introduce it. The threadmaster did.

But I take your point. You're a drinker you said and I approve of that. They are all abstemious water drinkers on here except you and I so I don't wish to fall out with you. Science has proof that drinking is bad for us individually and collectively. That's because swots don't drink and you have to be a swot to be scientific. So they will ban it when they come to power. Then we can all be scientists and being a scientist will be common and no good for ego preening and demanding reserved spaces on the car park.

I don't know anything about the teaching in the schools in Louisiana, so I wouldn't comment. I do know a lot about education in the UK. If I started making wild claims about teaching in Louisiana, I would be talking out of my arse, which is what you appear to be doing. This bias towards creationism in certain schools taken out of LEA control, has been brought to light by whitleblowing teachers and investigative journalism by the Guardian and Channel 4. If these companies bidding for contracts to run our schools had been up front and open about teaching creationism, they would never have got the contract in the first place.

Still having problems with that apostrophe, or lack of it? I'll help you out. When you mean to write a shortened version of you are, it's you're not your. You were the one who started the insults not me.

Sorry I posted my last post before reading yours. I was drunk last night today I'm sober. I'm sorry if I came off as being a bit snotty, but I am an English teacher. You can attack my politics or opinions on any thing, but I really take exception to people having a pop at my English. The thread may well be about Louisiana, but I was replying to something Farmerman said about UK schools.

Anyway as I talk Southampton are beating Walsall 2-1, and that's what I'm really interested in.

It wasn't a pop at your English izzi. It was to tell you that everytime you use a word like "sneaky" in the context you did it tells everybody where you are coming from and as, with this subject, it is predictable it will have been covered on this thread and possibly many times. That Creationism should not be taught in science classes has been encored on here more often than Mimi was after she performed the knickerless can-can in the late 19th century and the police had to be called to disperse the audience.

What do you think of Tristram Shandy? Have you introduced your charges to that masterpiece? I gave up science teaching for financial reasons. But I learned a lot in the five years I practised the art. Mainly that very few people are capable of understanding science.

Do you know Chapter 5 of Pantagruel? Science is okay but the trimmings are full of **** and " so foul, stinking and infamous that it is no better than filth and villainy."

Southampton are promoted eh? Poor old Preston North End.

spendi wrote,

Okay, spendi, show us where "the trimmings of science are full of ****?"

I'll bring you up to speed izzy.

My allegation is that it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with those who have seen fit to set aside the Church's rules on sexual matters. Or hope to do so. Malleus Ecclesiasticus.

Right here ci. The contributions of anti-IDers. Not the slightest sign of a scientific sensibility in any of them.

I'm going to back out now. Tristram Shandy is not a set text at Secondary School, but I did study it at uni. Thanks for recognising Southampton's fantastic end of season finale.

spendi, You're trying to make a global charge, but have failed to produce any evidence. We want specifics, not anything starting with anti-IDer that only beings with nonsense followed by nonsense.

Theres a limited number of literary works that spendi obsesses on and he frequently reminds the rest of us about these obsessions.
______________________________________________________________

The original topic has nothing to do with spendis opinion about whether or not anyone here (other than he I suppose) is capable of calling themselves a scientist. The topic has been about casting some light about the several states that are attempting to subvert the decisions of the US SUpreme Court by sneaking Creationist teaching and Intelligent Design teaching into science curricula. The most convenient means available to these states are to do the following

1They State emphatically that evolution is a "theory" (which in their mind , means nothing other than a conjecture

2Because it is "merely a theory" (by their definition) there must be an equally valid theory out there to explain the ascendency of life on the planet.

3They state that there is a boiling controversy regarding N0. 2

4 They propose that , within their state, schools should "teach this controversy" with some weighted critique regarding science curricula

5Then to top it all off, the states propose to teach the kids "critical thinking" with whatever outside resources that are available . These outside resources are NOT additional science literature. NO indeed. Instead, they are mostly self published and church sponsored "tracts" about the wonders of Creation.
DConsequently there really is no "critical thinking" being fostered. Instead it is data and thinking that is openly critical to standard scinece(in which no controversy about the validity of the Theory exists)

Spendi has been attempting, fopr 5 years (or more) to try to scream his above mantra which conflates evolution theory with godlessness and sexual promiscuity etc.
A few people buy his logic and prose. Moast dont. Count me in the latter group.

Noones really been rude to him, until he opened his shellbox and started calling names at everal people and institutions . He loves to critique newspaper articles for poor writing. He does this in a manner that would make Bulwar Lytton proud.

I just wanted you to be tuned up with as much back story as you can stand. Most if us have been arguing in shorthand that maybe a new comer would be a bit confused as to what the hell are all these dueling topics about?.

Thank you. I was quite amazed that someone could take exception to one word.

You see izzy--as soon as fm uses the word "sneaking", I'll let "subvert" pass for now because that's a lot more complicated, the rest of the spiel is predictable and has been rehearsed more times that a duck can quack in an average duck's lifetime. In a word--boring. So it has one function at least. It saves reading the rest of the pre-recorded message since it shows, without the slightest doubt, that all scientific bearings have been thrown to the winds and some sort of special pleading is going on.

On a science thread that is obviously trolling or represents a determined effort to inform everybody what a complete idiot he is. It's okay on Facebook I suppose but I wouldn't go near that with your barge pole so it doesn't concern me in the least.

I can see that you having used the word yourself you would agree with fm but that's just vanity you know.

You are so right. I used the word 'sneak' to describe surreptitiously introducing a strand of teaching into Science lessons, that goes against all professional guidelines, and would result in children losing marks if they wrote about it in the GCSE examinations, because of my vanity.

I don't know what I was thinking. If I didn't spend so long staring at myself adoringly in the mirror, I might have come up with a more appropriate word.

Please do not take this as hatefulness because I am very much against putting people down as I find it to be a form of mental retardation!

If you find it to be a form of mental advancement please help me to see where it would be profitable to call someone an idiot, stupid or any other demeaning concept!

Do you teach the youth against such behavior? If so you must find it to be a behavior that is not mentally advanced as well! Or am I wrong about this?


Spendius How much are you being paid to share this dogma with the world?

Maybe I am wrong but it seems you are a perfect candidate for OCPD or something very close, Or you have a financial stake in this!

My opinion would be the OCPD type, "not exactly but very close!

Who knows it may very well be both!

http://www.ocdonline.com/articlephillipson6.php