Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@izzythepush,

The more educated people are in the US, the more likely they are to drink.

Abstention in the US is inversely associated with social status. The lower the social class, the higher the abstention.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

FA is a Missoo'n maybe he has a feel about the timbre of the early campaign.
I was thinking that, should this bill get a smidge farther the governor ought to begin doing a "Steve Colbert" type of expose on ID in the schools and the way that its gone in the rest of the country and how even the Supreme Court has been not too friendly with Creationists and IDers.

No matter, I was smiling at your references to the Gerrymandering in TExass cause we have the very same thing here in PA. The only difference is that the party whose in charge of the leg during the next two terms past a decennial census, gets to call shots without much voting. Ive looked at the maps of the redistricted areas and weve got East Lancaster County Connected to "Inner city" READING (of Berks County) by a two mile strip of road that is only 4 lanes wide. Ill see if I cant get the final map , its worth a shrug and a laugh.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

If you are suggesting an "expose on ID" fm which is limited to your definition of science and logic then it is hardly an expose at all in any realistic sense. It's just ramming your bigotry up the kid's arses.

You are now defining an "expose" to suit your own rejection of Christian inhibitions on sexual activities.

Gerrymandering is as natural an occurrence under conditions of democracy organised by human beings as the sun rising in the east.

The thing to be old boy is one of the ones who do. Your post suggests you are one of the ones it is done to. Everybody who talks like you is having it done to them 24/7/52.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You sometimes seem capable of rational thought, I guess today is just a "Day off/".

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I can imagine you shouting that at a student who questioned the validity of your "expose of ID" on the same grounds I did and cowing the rest of the class into submissive acceptance of your bigotry grounded on the authority of your position which some idiots have placed you in by some devious route or other.

A blast of collective raspberries would be in order. Or low, ironic cheering.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I usually draw them into conversations and debates, during which we get involved in evidence and worldviews not the animus which you seem to demonstrate. Always discuss subjects with others holding differing views , at least initially, with respect. I treated your opinions with respect initially(several years ago). When I had learned that you were just some silly narcissistic codjer who needs constant attention, then I began dsimissing almost everything you say.

You must daily be in awe of the real world , mostly because youre not part of it.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

There you go again. Same attempt to cow. All meaningless. Especially when you hide away from the idea that evolution is looked at through a microscope and ID is looked at through a glass darkly.

And you hide away from biology in certain sensitive areas. And from social consequences.

I don't give an on the winger how you treat my opinions. They are offered to the thread.

It's obvious what you try to draw people into thinking and doing. You probably think they will all arrive where you're at. They won't. There are conclusions and actions derived from evolutionism and atheism that you are scared of even thinking about.

I'm for wiping schools out on the basis that too many silly twats like you have wormed their way into education.

0 Replies

A blogger has posted an interesting essay on Missouri's proposed intelligent design legislation.

Quote:

If You Have To Legislatively Force Your Theory To Be Taught As Science, You’ve Lost
(by Zandar, BalloonJuice.com, January 14, 2012)

PZ Myers flags this legislation under consideration in the Missouri House. It seems HB1227 would not only redefine “intelligent design creationism” as actual science, it would then require that textbooks and classes in Missouri schools be forced to teach it as acceptable science along with “scientific theory” evolution.

It’s bad enough that the bill attempts to redefine not just intelligent design but the process of science itself through legislation, but then the bill happily forces teachers to treat intelligent design and evolution as equals by radically re-categorizing what science actually means, which is a bit like saying every time you order your favorite meal at a restaurant, you must also be punched in the crotch, because both of them are equally satisfying according to the definition of “satisfying” placed in legislation by Republicans. The practical upshot: under this bill Missouri’s kids will eat their intelligent design and they will like it. (Also, the bill specifically says teachers can’t call out either “theory” as crap, but must teach them as actual accepted science.)

And before you say “Well that’s going to make it hard to get into college when you graduate with a background in basic science that has built-in air quotes”, the law applies to universities and colleges in Missouri too, defined as “any introductory science course taught at any public institution of higher education in this state” having to meet criteria like this:
“If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught. If biological intelligent design is taught, any proposed identity of the intelligence responsible for earth’s biology shall be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation and teachers shall not question, survey, or otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity within a science course.”

In other words, college professors and instructors in biology have to teach intelligent design as serious science, and they have to like it. Full stop. I’m thinking this bill will most likely die a slow and ignominious death in committee, but then again, anything involving Republicans and science always seems to end very badly for the country as a whole. We’ll do your critical thinking for you, thanks. You went to college to play football and drink anyway.

This makes me want to become a legislator, slap the definition of “douchebag” in a bill, then require that all Republicans be referred to as such in any official state capacity. The bill may or may not involve crotch-punching. I haven’t decided yet.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

Balloon Juice is entirely appropriate.

The guy's having a wannabe legislator fantasy without bothering to get up on the hustings and win it.

Those who have won the right to be a legislator have won the right to enact what they see fit. And the voters can remove them if they don't like what is enacted and reverse what they did enact.

This Zandar, safely hidden away, is calling into question our systems. And posturing as being "scientific" (i.e. superior) when it's obvious he has no clue about science and would run a country mile if science was applied to his daily doings.

2 Replies

@spendius,

The problem with these totalitarians is that if they became legislators the first thing they would enact is that the voters couldn't remove them or reverse what they have legislated.

They are not going to get a free piggy-back on pop-science while I'm around.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

I too, see that the bill will die and even if it doesnt, the gov will have to veto it or else he will be strapped with paying part of the expected lawsuit costs when the school district , like Dover, loses in court.

Oh, while these diversions in legislatures occur in the several states, I am confident that "at the end opf the day" (Ive never said that before). The world will right itself and the douche bags will once again crawl under their desks and confer about how atheism is creeping into the Show me state.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

"Douche bags" is just another excuse to present a circularity as logical. If they really are douche bags your conclusions are automatic. If not then your conclusions are fatuous. And it's an assertion that they are.

1 Reply

@spendius,

And the assertion that they are douche bags is an assertion that you are not. Big ******* deal. When are you going to grow up fm.

Sell us your manifesto eh? Knocking the manifesto of others is a piece of piss and continually doing it suggests you have no manifesto to sell or think you can't sell it. Which polls suggest you can't.

And no wonder seeing as how the US public are not as stupid as you lot fondly believe.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendi, You continue to use adjectives about science, but when asked to prove anything you say about science, all we get is silence.

You said "science is circular," so I asked you to provide any evidence that science is circular. No response from you; how long do we have to wait until you answer any question we ask you about science? Your adjectives are meaningless without your ability to define words and provide evidence that you use against science.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Nixon is up for reelection I believe and Im sure he wouldnt even give a minutes consideration for this bill. Maybe the reason that the bill is even being run into committee is that its being used as an early election strategy.

Nothin like getting the Bible thumping "base" get all steamed up . These folks are usually just able to entertain one issue at a time anyway.

This is exactly my suspicion. I don't know if it's necessarily directed at Nixon. I think it's a periodic public event designed to remind the conservative Christians who they are supposed to vote for. It also grabs the attention of people who actually want this kind of bullshit, and gets them together and organized. Once they're together, some big shot might enter the room and be suggest they campaign on other issues.

Bible bait.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

thanks FA. How has Nixon been handling his admin overall? Does he appear to be akeeper or is he vulnerable ?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I don't know why you guys are so het up about this. It's obviously a hopeless rearguard action.

All the statistics on sexual behaviour patterns show that we are coming into conformity with the general norm to be found in the animal world and at a pace which only those with a subjective obsession about it could possibly be impatient with.

Why you keep on presenting an obvious continuing triumphal progress towards evolutionary perfection as a defeat or as being threatened or hindered is incomprehensible unless it is that you are seeking to accrue credit for knowing which way the wind is blowing.

The essential victories were achieved by others long before you were born and by people who took risks that you are not called upon to take.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You're riding on the skirts of Annie Besant and Madame Blavatsky. The reason you avoid the works of good ladies such as those is that you don't wish to know that they mapped out the land so you could navigate it so easily in your armchairs.

1 Reply

@spendius,

are you talking to yourself again? Dont be so hard , youll get it sooner or later.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The atom is elastic, ergo, the atom is divisible, and must consist of particles, or of sub-atoms. And these sub-atoms? They are either non-elastic, and in such case they represent no dynamic importance, or, they are elastic also; and in that case, they, too, are subject to divisibility. And thus ad infinitum. But infinite divisibility of atoms resolves matter into simple centers of force, i.e., precludes the possibility of conceiving matter as an objective substance.

Helena Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine Volume I, p. 519.

1888 (in the Christian calender of course).

1 Reply

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know