Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@farmerman,

Quote:

There's no real science that disputes evolution.

How can there be when proponents of evolution are defining what real science is? When you answer the points I raised about the logical objection to evolutionism on the other thread you might be taken more seriously. Your tautology is not an answer.

Quote:

There IS real science that disputes man- induced climate change.

That won't do fm. What is it? I'm well aware that other factors besides the activities of mankind will cause climate changes. Such factors are irrelevant to the argument.

1 Reply

@spendius,

the scientific method was ascribed to Ibn Al-Hatham in the 10th century. His scientific method involved the following stages:

Observation of the natural world

Stating a definite problem

Formulating a robust hypothesi

Test the hypothesis through experimentation

Assess and analyze the results

Interpret the data and draw conclusions

Publish the findings

It want the "Anti IDers" or the "Anti SCience" Christians, it was a Muslim

2 Replies

@farmerman,

That's how we all became tit men old boy. Apart from the publishing of course. The wordplay.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

And the scientific method continues to correct its own errors. The bible is full of errors and contradiction, so all they can do is call it something else.

Interpreting the bible is a big mystery; interpreting its words changes from one interpretation to another through the ages. They can't see that the words and their meanings have been fixed since they were written.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

And the scientific method continues to correct its own errors.

Except the main one which is that a society cannot run on one track. Doing without the sacred leaves the profane standing not even in its underpants.

And if you **** stirrers would forget about evolution in schools we might be able to get the other wheel down. It is a special case touching as it does upon the most intimate aspects of our personal dignity which gravity does not impinge upon, except pedantically, and 2+2=4 not even that.

Evolutionism is flawed logically, as I've explained and not been rebutted, it is flawed morally because it gives no grounding for any moral values and such grounding is a major part of what schools are for, and it is unacceptable to the majority of the world's population.

Why wouldn't the Bible be full, an ill chosen word imo, of errors and contradictions. It would be quite a surprise if it wasn't considering what it consists of and what were the motives of those who wrote it. All members of some sort of literate elite. An elite somewhat similar to our telecommunications elite although considerably smaller proportionally compared to the monsters we have created.

Who can't see that the words and their meanings have been fixed since they were written? Don't knock the greatest book in the world because you think "they", whoever they are, can't see that the words and their meanings have been fixed since they were written. If there are some like that it is of no consequence to an appreciation of the Bible. Your bogeymen are not the last word on the Bible.

2 Replies

@spendius,

You're talking in riddles; give us some specifics?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Evolutionism is flawed logically, as I've explained and not been rebutted,

Noone wants to rebut your head -up-your -ass speculations. If you could explain (without resorting to references about ladies foundation garments , beer, tits, or any dead author) how its flawed "logically". I could use a good laugh today and you usually deliver

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I have done twice. More than twice. Recently. Calling it h-u-m-a speculations couldn't rebut a bit of fluff that fell off a powder puff. Of course no-one wants to rebut them because they can't. Nor can they the moral objection. The theory is moribund. That's why Dawkins went popular. He was selling books, is selling books, will sell books, because most people don't understand these objections.

The tautologous teleology that it was Natural Selection that drove life's mechanisms obscuring the illogicality of thinking the story of the growth explained it. "Natural Selection" is too elastic a term. So much so it hardly means anything. As if it was the secret of life. And Charlie was the one to solve such a mystery. A chap who played his long suffering wife at backgammon and exuded triumph when he beat her. And him lording over the peasants who could have kicked his arse out of the county using Natural Selection as their moral guide.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Natural selection has to be elastic; it covers all the bases, unlike what you try to refute with your minutia arguments.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You're talking in riddles; give us some specifics?[/i]

Right then--don't read--"In the beginning was the word and the word was made flesh" in the same way that you read--"To open turn anticlockwise". Literacy, and those into whose hands it is entrusted, are going to make the world a better place.

It can get mystical ci. Not your cup of tea.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You wrote,

Quote:

"In the beginning was the word and the word was made flesh"

Without flesh, word would be impossible. That's a FACT.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Without word life was intolerable except for those having to tolerate it.

Are you a "Noble Savage" nut-job?

1 Reply

@spendius,

But you seem unawares of what has to come before language/word.
And that isn't even "evolution." You do understand logic?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I'm not unaware of what came before literacy but I don't think that what did has any useful lessons for us and thus has no place on schools.

0 Replies

@spendius,

was there a statement or a question in all of that pablum? You seem to lose control of your thoughts between your start and your finish sentence.
What you claim is rubbish and I can understand your need for clever sounding prevarication.Its simply because youre in over yer head in these topics.
Well, you can alwaysserve as an example of what ethanol can do to the brain of the working class.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Yes. There were 9 statements in the first paragraph.

If I seem to lose control of my thoughts between my start and my finish sentence it has nothing to do with me how it seems to you. Your comprehension capacities are the likely cause.

Informing me that what I claim is rubbish is fatuous. Prevarication is your style as your post shows. Where is your rebuttal of the logical and moral and sociological objections to evolutionism? Your post is nothing but prevarication.

We are all in over our heads on the origins and the processes of life. And those who think we are not have no place in the educational processes of free societies.

As a reformed alcoholic, and we all know what that means, could you explain the difference between the effects of alcohol on the working class brain and those of the higher orders to which you presumably are not so subtly inferring you belong.

How do you define the working class?

Has evolution even got a series to describe?

Why are my contributions to a debate expressing a need any more than anybody else's? You have put me on Ignore a few times and then come back. That's more like an addict's behaviour pattern. Your continual references to my two pints of beer a day as though I'm a piss artist is typical of somebody trying to hold the demon at bay.

Do you not sense that Darwin feeling superior to the peasants would lead him to feel that peasants were superior to cows, cows to rats, rats to moles, moles to beetles, beetles to midges and midges to plankton. In what way are any of those creatures superior to any other except from a certain spiritual outlook?

Is a subjective feeling of superiority the driving force of evolutionism? Plus an obsession with order and compartmentalisation driven by an abject fear of chaos.

0 Replies

INDIANA UPDATE

Quote:

Teaching creationism clears legislative panel
(Tom Davies, Associated Press, January 26, 2012)

Indiana's public schools would be allowed to teach creationism in science classes under a bill endorsed Wednesday by a state Senate committee.

The Senate Education Committee voted 8-2 in favor of the bill despite experts and some senators saying teaching creationism likely would be ruled unconstitutional if challenged in court.

Committee Chairman Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, said he sponsored the bill because he believes creationism should be taught among the theories on the development of life and that the proposal wouldn't force any changes in schools teaching evolution.

"This is a local option and the local school board decides," Kruse said.

Purdue University science education professor John Staver told the committee that federal courts have repeatedly found that teaching creationism violates church-state separation because of its reliance on the Bible's Book of Genesis.

Staver said he believed any school district that started teaching creationism would face lawsuits they would likely lose.

"All that the citizens of Indiana are going to get from this bill are wasted legal efforts, lawyer fees and penalties," Staver said.

Sen. Scott Schneider, R-Indianapolis, maintained that there are legitimate questions about the theory of evolution and that many scientists agree with the concept of intelligent design, the theory that life on Earth is so complex it was guided by an intelligent higher power.

"What are we afraid of? Allowing an option for students including creation science as opposed to limiting their exposure?" Schneider said.

Some committee members suggested that they would support amending the bill in the full Senate to instead encourage schools to teach about the world's religions in literature or history classes. Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, voted in favor of the bill even though he called its current form a "lawyer's dream."

Kruse said he knew of nothing in current state law that prohibited public schools from teaching creationism.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

INDIANA UPDATE

Quote:
Teaching creationism clears legislative panel
(Tom Davies, Associated Press, January 26, 2012)

"This is a local option and the local school board decides," Kruse said.

Unless it's an unconstitutional action. Which it is.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Quote:

"All that the citizens of Indiana are going to get from this bill are wasted legal efforts, lawyer fees and penalties," Staver said.

That's the bloody point wande. "Wasted" is obviously circular. If these things are wasted we are all against them and not just Staver. He is deciding what wasted means and to the beneficiaries of the fees and penalties, down to the last tip to the doorman, they are a very long way from being felt to be being wasted. Despite the doorman agreeing with Staver due to ignorance how the shakedown of the dough takes place from shovelling it out of one door of the treasury to it arriving back at another door in trucks with, hopefully, an interest accrued.

And even if it is wasted it's you lot who are the cause. You lot have mounted the challenge. You haven't even considered that medieval clerics used more gruesome methods than explanations because the explanations were dangerous too. They were used to gruesome solutions for all sources of threats to orderly progress whatever they deemed them to be. In fact I think it was Professor Skinner who recommended the same solution now. And some demonstrators I saw on the telly in Wall Street when our present woes are said to have begun also did. ( That took the evolutionists by surprise.) One hears the same in the pub from time to time.

You started the confrontation knowing full well that not only is the opposition irresistable, implacable and immovable but also knowing that there was no way to find neutral ground on which a nice, cosy compromise can be thrashed out in rooms from which the smoke has been removed by order. You're not content for it to evolve. Your opposition may melt away imperceptibly if you lot left it to its own devices. You are polarising, politicising and provoking it.

And knowing full well there will be lots of fees, penalties and sundry other impositions loaded onto the already stooped shoulders of the citizens of Indiana, and any other citizens who can be found for the purpose, and thus being the real cause of them. Knowingly.

Faking the principled stance performance.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

I bet ros is yearning for a case on his patch then he can be a plaintiff and be cross examined and be unable to use Ignore.

0 Replies

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know