61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2012 05:41 pm
@farmerman,
That's what I thought you had done fm with me.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2012 05:49 pm
@spendius,
Spendius Don't you think that you would have allot more fun in a thread where there are other Christians that think similar as you? I think that you and xxspademasterxx really hit if of well. He just posted some real moving ideas that I think you can relate to in this thread below.

http://able2know.org/topic/176795-8
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2012 06:09 pm
@reasoning logic,
Forget it rl. fm and I just bonded on the bottom line.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2012 06:11 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
bottom line


Is that a gay pub?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2012 06:14 pm
@reasoning logic,
Nah. Homosexuals are avoiding the bottom line. Strenuously.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2012 06:24 pm
@spendius,
We all know you are the 'bottom line,' but do you need to confess to it? LOL
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2012 06:37 pm
@cicerone imposter,
now whats he starting?
Not that theres anything wrong with that.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2012 06:50 pm
@farmerman,
What he starts are the unrelated analogies from classic writers that he passes off as his "bottom line" contribution. Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 04:51 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication--M Buonarotti


Genesis being the best example. "Poof!" Job done.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 07:09 am
@cicerone imposter,
FYI ci. There's nothing unrelated. You have obviously made the unwitting presumption that you have understood the analogies. Otherwise you couldn't have concluded that they are unrelated. And they must be related at the macro-cosmic level because everything is related and at the micro-cosmic level because they were related in my head if not in yours.

Did you mark your own exam papers when you were at finishing school?

I must admit that I owe a great debt to those men and women of the past who thought fit to place their best thoughts on record. I cannot repay any of them because they are all dead. Many of them dust.

It is very necessary, imo, that we get an idea of what life was like before the industrial transformation of the human condition in order to appreciate how absolutely dramatic it has been and how utterly unrelated the lives before that, and during its evolution, were to the predicament we are all in.

(I suppose, thinking scientifically, that the intensity of the predicament can be measured by the effort to get away from it. Not that we can do of course.)

But "classic" writers, as you so snootily style them, and other artists, have to provide insights that one can recognise from experience. When Ovid tells Corinna "don't ever do that again" after she told him she had had an abortion one shouldn't need to listen to any further arguments on the matter.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 10:13 am
INDIANA UPDATE
Quote:
Indiana Senate broadens bill allowing creationism teaching to include more religions' theories
(TOM DAVIES, Associated Press, January 31, 2012)

Legislators on Monday broadened a proposal aimed at allowing Indiana's public schools to teach creationism in science classes to require that such courses include origin of life theories from multiple religions.

The Senate approved the change to legislation critics had argued was unconstitutional because federal courts repeatedly have found teaching creationism violates church-state separation because of its reliance on the Bible's book of Genesis.

The change proposed by Democratic Sen. Vi Simpson of Bloomington says any course offered by public schools teaching creationism must include origin theories from multiple religions, among them Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Scientology.

Simpson said she didn't think the change would resolve constitutional problems, but she believed broadening the subject matter might cause local school boards to hesitate before deciding to insert religion into science classes.

"It does make it clear that a school board can't just say we're only going to teach Christian creation theory but we also have to cover other multiple religions," Simpson said.

The broadened bill still faces a vote by the full Senate before advancing to the House.

Republican Sen. Dennis Kruse of Auburn, who sponsored the creationism bill, said he reluctantly supported the change because it made the proposal acceptable to more senators.

Kruse said while he wanted school districts to have the option of teaching creationism alongside evolution he believed the broader proposal still would expose students to theories that the development of life was guided by a deity.

"Most of those other main religions also believe in creation," Kruse said.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 12:54 pm
@wandeljw,
One of the problems wande is that the Constitution is a religious document because, being a humanist composition, its language is removed from unself-conscious daily contexts and raised to the level of the sacred and the self-conscious activity of being recorded and thus given a religious significance and independence.

Doctrines and formulae receive a special life of their own when they are endowed with script (or scripture) and they are mediated and interpreted by a caste: priests, theologians, constitutional experts, lawyers etc. The ritual of abstract signs on paper takes over from the rituals, such as dances and ceremonies, of pre-literate societies.

Such things are born of a reverence for written language which takes an extreme form when assertions of no validity are dignified by being written down. Such reverence is encouraged by that class which is the guardian of the language and adheres to its members by association.

The US Constitution is merely an extension of the power of the written word which grew up in Europe hundreds of years previously when government came to be conducted by lawyers rather than by men of action. Every revolution is an overthrowing of such powers by men of action who then proceed to write their own constitutions. It is not a Holy Grail. Which does not mean it cannot be used as a Holy Grail by those who have a vested interest in doing so.

Reverence, or worship, of the "Book" and respect for its custodians is likely to be latent in the very discovery of writing. The Constitution has its own hierarchy which mimics the hierarchy of The Church. Authority is vested in those who interpret it. (Scribes).

There results the inevitable conflict, as in all Humanist doctrines, between theory and practice. Leaving aside the possibility that the doctrine may be invalid it is certainly the case that no language can cover unambiguously the contingencies of life. The absence of gesture is a major limitation. We see that on here with little cartoon faces attempting to remedy the deficiency. Maybe there were a few "eye-rollings" when it was written but they didn't make it onto the page.

Real life is far too complex to be captured by abstract signs on a piece of paper no matter how carefully drafted.

Once literary principles become worshipped a dilemma arises. A scholasticism develops and its seminar trained ministers build up an ever increasing set of elaborations in a vain attempt to keep up with rapid change, a Sysiphusian task, or the revered principles are treated as abstract slogans or dogmas whose applications are a matter of loose interpretation.

A further problem is that the words used in these slogans and dogmas are taken over from the complexities of daily life. They have a dual use which causes confusion.

The reality of daily life is, more or less, intractable,

Thus such Humanist productions are Platonic. That is they start from the corruption of the world and seek to find perfection in the realm of ideas. Such is anti-ID. There is something about reality which is beyond our reach. People often say--" it's all very well in theory..."

Max Weber found a certain correlation between theory and practice in the crucial importance of the Protestant religion, assuming it is lived up to by the faithful, in the transformation from the pre-industrial to the industrial in urban, trading populations. Obviously such an idea implies that modern science is an offspring of Christianity.

It is a great irony that the reverence for the written word, when it was strictly obeyed as Calvin insisted it should be, created a world in which the Word lost respect. Language destroys itself. We get Derrida and Linguistic Philosophy.

The point being that the Constitution is a religious document insisting upon the separation of religion and secular concerns. An absurdity.

It's a vast and complex area of study way beyond the ordinary person. The dispute here is simply one of a struggle for power between the High Priests of two religions. Two Books.

We are the poor bloody infantry I'm afraid.

cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 12:58 pm
@spendius,
spendi, Why do you insist on idiotic comments like "grade my own paper?"
You loose all concept of reality and credibility with that kind of stupid shite!
It's one of your weaknesses; to make statements that have no bearing on anything; it's all dreamt up in your grey matter that has read more than the average joe, but fail to use them properly when called for.

Don't you get it?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 01:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Sure I get it. I showed you deciding what is "unrelated".

Is it okay if we all do that? Or is it, as it looks to be in anti-ID posts, a special privilege reserved for you silly moocows.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 01:21 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
The change proposed by Democratic Sen. Vi Simpson of Bloomington says any course offered by public schools teaching creationism must include origin theories from multiple religions, among them Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Scientology.


That would be okay assuming the students were then invited to consider the outcomes in each case as the scientific method of assessing their relative validities. They could not reasonably be studied as functionless in a society which is posited on functionality.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 01:25 pm
@spendius,
Teaching religion is not science, spendi.
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 02:44 pm
@cicerone imposter,
And teaching evolution has no place in a religious school. We can teach science without evolution. It isn't as if there is no science without it. It's usefulness to a few specialists is neither here nor there. They can learn the essentials from racing pigeon breeding anyway. In 15 minutes max.

The fossils are in aid of an alternative story of life and the description of their what-ness, their where-ness and their when-ness is not an explanation of life. And to obscure the illogicality of using a description of a series as an explanation of it.

If we don't need a story of life we are probably a new type of humanity.

Your side knew very well what they were getting into by demanding evolution be taught in secondary schools. Christianity is our cultural DNA and we are going to resist it being overthrown by a tin-pot, simple idea that is illogical, immoral and unacceptable to the large majority. The majority would be larger if the matter was more fully examined. Your side provoked the battle.

It's so important that it is incomprehensible that presidential elections rest on infractions of Christian sexual morality and itsy-bitsy tax payments and this subject is very carefully never mentioned.

Let's see you take on the power men. You've been beating up feather dusters so far and it's got you cocky.

The real seducer doesn't go flaccid at the bedroom door. Theory is one thing, practice is another. Plato was nuts.
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 02:47 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
And teaching evolution has no place in a religious school. We can teach science without evolution
You live in a dream world old man. Only the most Fundamental prochial school do NOT teach evolution and they produce well rounded students (even the CAtholic schools teach about a transcendant God in order to not lose their kids attentions)




Quote:
One of the problems wande is that the Constitution is a religious document because, being a humanist composition, its language is removed from unself-conscious daily contexts and raised to the level of the sacred and the self-conscious activity of being recorded and thus given a religious significance and independence.


Once again youve confused the language of something that youve never read and still dont understand. Read the Federalist Papers and see what mssrs Hamilton MAdison and JAy have to speak of .
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 02:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
spendi, Why do you insist on idiotic comments like "grade my own paper?"


Because he is spendius. Silly question. Smile
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 03:46 pm
@wandeljw,
What wande means is that I am the only one around here who would notice that ci's use of "unrelated" was solipsistic and pointless being an assertion based on the idea that only those analogies he thinks are related are the only ones that are. I'm certainly not the only one in the wider world.

The rest of you would take it for granted that if ci said my analogies are unrelated to these matters then that proves they are unrelated.

Phoooey!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 11:09:48