61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 06:12 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
I have to respond. I'm sorry if I upset anyone H20Man excepted.

No problem mate. I think, from the evidence of people jumping in, theres rather a nice feeling that someone wishes to debate some points for their own clarification rather than just posting repeated phrases and short-of-logic bullits on the subject.
Im not gonna do any comparitive legal dissections because it serves little purpose than to raise temperatures than increae the lighting. We have several Constitutional lawyers on the boards and , though one of them can get rather tiresome in his support of ONE amendment, they can put a better legal discussion together if you still feel that our Constitution is anachronistic (Most of us say rather"When it aint broke dont fix it, but lets do fix what is broke".

Of course we have many examples of wide disparity between whats intended and whats actually practice. We are imperfect and our institutions suffer from heavy influences by special interests and cronyism (sorta like yours).
When our constitution was formulated it was intended for long term implementation and was derived from good points of the ENglish legal system and avoidance of the bad (at least in theory).
It actually took over 200 years to really "get our act together" and we recognize that we are always "under construction" and new challenges hit us sometimes faster than we can accomodate them.

We try our best and dont always get it but weve got time . But anachronistic, naaah . We havent yet been dealt anything that we cant accomodate within our system of laws.
EVEN this issue will be slowly dealt with. Its gonna cost money to keep the Hoynhimms from getting their noses under the tent. (Weve actually got a means by which their larvae can get inculcated with the myths of Creation and get their GEDs ) We just dont ket them into gret universities to study biological sciences becuse they cant keet the requirements for entrance. by getting a "Bio" degree from Liberty University.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 06:25 am
@wandeljw,
Meanwhile.............in Indiana..................

Quote:
Creation science bill clears the Indiana Senate
(By Scott Elliott, Indy Star, February 1, 2012)

The Indiana Senate passed a bill Tuesday that would allow creationism to be taught in the classroom — an idea that, if it becomes law, could likely end up in a courtroom.

Senate Bill 89, authored by Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, would allow schools to teach religion-based views on the origin of creation — be they Muslim, Jewish, Scientology or Christian — alongside the theory of evolution in public school science classes.

Schools, however, would not be required to do so, and an Indiana Department of Education spokesman said the state would not develop any such curriculum or guidelines for teaching creationism.

The Senate passed the bill 28-22. It would still need to be passed by the House and signed by Gov. Mitch Daniels before it became law.

“I believe in creation,” Kruse said, “and I believe it deserves to be taught in our public schools.”

Sen. Karen Tallian, D-Portage, had a decidedly different take: “I can’t believe we are even considering this.”

The question now — if it becomes law — is whether schools will consider it. And if they do, will that violate the Constitution?

Creation science was specifically ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1987 case in which the court voided a Louisiana law that required creation science to be taught alongside evolution in science class. The court found the law violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution because it was designed to advance religion.

Kruse said he is aware of the precedent but isn’t sure it would survive today.

“This is a different Supreme Court,” he said. “This Supreme Court could rule differently.”

Sen. Tim Skinner, D-Terre Haute, asked whether Indiana is ready for the lengthy legal battle that could follow.

“If we get sued,” he asked, “who is going to pay for the lawsuit?”

The answer to Skinner’s question might help explain why Kruse felt the need to put creationism into state law.

Technically, a school district could teach creationism now — and some do.

“As far as I know,” said Mount Vernon Community School Corporation Superintendent William Riggs, “we’ve always been allowed to do that.”

Riggs said Mount Vernon High School’s biology class already teaches creationism alongside evolution. “We’ve been doing this for years.”

Riggs said the school teaches them as “two theories of the origins of life” and said that in literature classes students often learn about the Bible and the Quran. “The idea is to get kids to think.”

But districts such as Mount Vernon potentially open themselves up to costly lawsuits. Kruse’s bill gives those districts and any other that choose to teach creationism some legal cover — and likely would draw the state into their defense.

*********************************************************************

Coincidentally, Tuesday’s vote came on the same day that the Fordham Foundation released a report that named Indiana as one of just seven states that earned an “A” for its science standards.

That might change.

“If this law passes, for the classrooms of Indiana, it would be a serious undermining of the teaching of evolution,” said Kathleen Porter-Magee, senior director of the High Quality Standards Project at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

The think tank, based in Washington, D.C., advocates for high academic standards and school choice.

In its report, Fordham said the challenges to evolution are among the biggest problems facing science standards today.

Adding creation science to state standards, Porter Magee said, would be a step in the wrong direction.

Francis Eberle, the executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, agrees.

“I understand that religious belief and faith is important,” he said. “We don’t dispute that in any fashion. Our position is that in the science classroom we should be teaching science.”

Kruse called evolution a “Johnny come lately” idea that emerged well after many religious views about the origins of life were formed.

“Many people still believe in creation,” he said. “Our schools are teaching what many people believe is false.”

Kruse thinks his bill is fair to everyone because it was amended to allow the creation theories of several religions, not just Christianity. But the inclusion of other religions was the reason Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, said he voted against the measure.

Nine other Republicans voted against the bill, and one Democrat, Lindel Hume of Princeton, voted for it.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 06:30 am
Quote:
“This is a different Supreme Court,” he said. “This Supreme Court could rule differently.”


I've said this before, these clowns are motivated by a belief that they can get a different ruling from this Court. At least this joker is honest about it.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 06:45 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

What a snide son of a bitch you are.


So much for reconciliation. At least I've not resorted to personal insults.

Quote:
So tell, Mr. Smar-mouth ************, are bills attainder legal in England? Do the English ever "render" prisoners elsewhere to avoid habeas corpus?


The problems our government is facing legally is in our complicity in your extraordinary renditions, and we don't have anything like Guantanamo Bay at present. I'm sure you can find some historical precedent though. Our Moslem fanatics are tried and sentenced on our own soil. In fact we sentenced some yesterday.

An al-Qaida-inspired gang of terrorists has admitted plotting to bomb the London Stock Exchange and targeting Big Ben and Westminster Abbey, after an 11th-hour plea bargain in court.

Quote:
A handwritten list included the names and addresses of the London mayor, Boris Johnson, two rabbis, the US embassy and the London Eye as potential targets to attack in the runup to Christmas 2010.

The group's alleged "linchpin" was Mohammed Chowdhury, a 21-year-old from east London, who pleaded guilty at Woolwich crown court to preparing to commit an act of terrorism.

He and eight other men from London, Cardiff and Stoke-on-Trent were due to face trial this week. At the last minute they admitted the terror plot, but denied the intention was to cause death or injury.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/01/terror-plotters-mumbai-attacks-london

One thing that you may find interesting is that there was no outcry by Londoners about the dangers of putting them on trial in London for fear of reprisals.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 06:47 am
@izzythepush,
You may be assured that there is nothing you have to write which i will find interesting.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 06:51 am
@Setanta,
I always find your posts interesting, even if they are a little dyspeptic.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 07:03 am
@izzythepush,
Simple, really - you know your Bagehot, so the distinction between your constitution and ours is the one he draws in his 2nd edition:
Quote:
......As I have endeavoured to show in this volume, the deference of the old electors to their betters was the only way in which our old system could be maintained. No doubt countries can be imagined in which the mass of the electors would be thoroughly competent to form good opinions; approximations to that state happily exist.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4351/4351-h/4351-h.htm

We think the US constitution is one of those "approximations" Bagehot mentions in his introduction. Even more revealing is what he writes near the end of that book, referring directly to the US:
Quote:
.....there is a still worse case, a case which the life of George III.—which is a sort of museum of the defects of a constitutional king—suggests at once. The Parliament may be wiser than the people, and yet the king may be of the same mind with the people. During the last years of the American war, the Premier, Lord North, upon whom the first responsibility rested, was averse to continuing it, and knew it could not succeed. Parliament was much of the same mind; if Lord North had been able to come down to Parliament with a peace in his hand, Parliament would probably have rejoiced, and the nation under the guidance of Parliament, though saddened by its losses, probably would have been satisfied.

When phrased that way, the apparent division between you and other posters here seems to vanish.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 07:07 am
@High Seas,
I think you'll find that deference is well and truly dead in the UK. It started to die out in the 1960s, admittedly there are still a few who like to kow tow to their 'betters,' but they're a dying breed.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 07:10 am
@izzythepush,
The thing is izzy that these guys on here know very little about the Constitution or about politics. They use the same trick with these matters as they do with science. A few buzz phrases like gravity, quantum mechanics, alleles and the like and they make themselves sound like scientists to the scientifically illiterate.

I don't know much about the US Constitution and the politics deriving from it. I've read a fair lot about it and it is fiendishly complicated. The simple fact that these bozos make it sound simple and straightforward is quite sufficient evidence of the ignorance they attempt to parlez into expertise. They talk about Jefferson and Hamilton and Jay and company but you just read about the buggers and the Orange Order springs to mind. There was one election shortly after the C was ratified in which 1.3% of the population, 20% being slaves, voted. The bewhiskered gentry. Some for France some for England.

As a guide to what is going on now it's hopeless. BUT IT WORKS PRETTY WELL. Obviously. The thought of it not doing is a knee wobbler.

Every election now is choosing about 1,000,000 officials. Can you get your head around that? Hanging chads, tweaking the electronic voting machines, ID cards, federal and state laws in operation, media buy offs, general hysteria, know alls, campaign funds, arm twisting, penis biographies, eligibility of voters, electoral colleges, primaries, open or closed, front loaded or invisible, caucuses, low turn outs, state rights, absentee ballots, mail ballots, early voting, locally tailored voting machines, confused citizens, signature collections, gerrymandering, PACs, (about 4,000), hard money/soft money, 527 groups, conventions, lies, promises, general bullshit, short attention spans, pork barrels, media, media, media.

It's byzantine. A little knowledge about it is worse than none. It works pretty well for those who it works pretty well for.

What works best is a small and growing population in a large unexploited land rich in natural resources using European technology. Perfect conditions from a Darwinian point of view. Malthus comes later.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 07:22 am
@izzythepush,
The "approximations" Bagehot writes about refer to the United States. He was a great admirer of the US Constitution - and there can be no dispute about what he writes of the "American War" and Lord North. That's exactly what Farmerman, Setanta, I and others here have been trying to explain to you. Got to vanish into the wild blue yonder (aka my flight is being called) so wish you a good day Smile
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 07:27 am
@High Seas,
Have a safe flight.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 07:53 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Evolution is the keystone to biology and to life on earth. And it may be the single most informative scientific discovery ever made. Several times now, when scientists from various disciplines are polled about the most valuable scientific discovery in human history, Evolution tops the list.

I don't know where you went to school, but it seems from your question that they really didn't do a very good job of introducing you to the ubiquitous value of evolutionary theory.


Evolution might be the keystone to a certain aspect of biology but it is insufficient to explain life on earth. And the word "evolution" defined as the keystone to biology is a tautology. And defined as the key to life on earth it is illogical as I have explained more than once with no rebuttal forthcoming.

But the reason ros has me on Ignore is so that he can sail blissfully on and never have to bother about any explained illogicalities not all that unlike those people who think they are Napoleon. Describing a series, as Darwin does, is not explaining it. One wouldn't explain motor vehicle transportation by describing the vehicles from start to now using a form of natural selection, sensual and moral comfort, as the driving mechanism. You would need to explain a lot more than that to have an understanding of motor vehicle transportation. Try the moral comfort side of things. And evolution is gene transportation.

And we need to know the sampling methods used to select the
"scientists from various disciplines" who were polled. Surely the control of fire, the secret of which Prometheus stole from the Gods, is the most valuable scientific discovery in human history. Without it no Darwin. No schools to worry about.

Some say it was the discovery of alcoholic beverages. Or narcotics in general. Certainly whenever one speaks with a tee-total non-smoker there is a sense that nothing would have ever happened out of the ordinary if they were to be relied upon. Raw bananas is all they ever know about.

Why would evolution have a ubiquitous value when one side of the argument is that it will tear us into shreds. ros has another tautology on his hands there.

There's not a scorrick of science in the lad. He's unaware that his views, in this case on ubiquitous, obviously false, and on value, are not scientific facts, and, as such, do not belong on a science thread. They just win the argument for him for the very good reason that they can't lose it logically. He's set it up that way.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 08:37 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

Meanwhile.............in Indiana..................

Quote:
Creation science bill clears the Indiana Senate
(By Scott Elliott, Indy Star, February 1, 2012)

Riggs said Mount Vernon High School’s biology class already teaches creationism alongside evolution. “We’ve been doing this for years.”

Time to call the ACLU Smile
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 11:06 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
“I believe in creation,” Kruse said, “and I believe it deserves to be taught in our public schools.”

Thats not the test. Its a test that such a statment is actually being "pushed" by law. In Pa(pre Dover day) we reconstituted our science ed curriculum to define science as that which can be EVIDENCED , FALSIFIED,and based upon investigation using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Dover merely underpinned our state ed boards reccomendation to the school districts. (Its now a two part support document)


Quote:
Mount Vernon High School’s biology class already teaches creationism alongside evolution. “We’ve been doing this for years.”

Youll find that that statement is severe hyperbole. They offer a course in comparative religions and in history,NOT IN BIOLOGY OR SCIENCE. There is a huuuge difference
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 11:17 am
AND FROM A MICHIGAN CITY INDIANA BLOG we have:
Quote:

I can't wait until kids come home and tell their conservative Evangelical parents about how 75,000,000 years ago, Xenu headed the Galactic Federation, which was an organization of 76 planets that had already existed for 20,000,000 years. The planets were suffering a tremendous problem with overpopulation. Xenu's solution to the matter was to gather large numbers of people, kill them, freeze their thetans (souls), and transport the frozen thetans to Earth, which they called Teegeeack. The thetans were left in the vicinity of volcanoes, which were, in turn, destroyed in a series of nuclear explosions. The thetans who were captured and exploded on Earth are the origin of body thetans. Each human has his or her own thetan.



Hey, its as good as the Biblical version or the Pastafarians (sauce be upon them)

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 12:19 pm
@farmerman,
No it isn't. A thesis drawn up on peyote juice to pass the time is not comparably with thousands of years of purifying wisdom.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 12:30 pm
@spendius,
You are confused; purifying wisdom and religion is an oxymoron.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 04:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
One might define religion as the purification of wisdom or call the purification of wisdom by the name of religion.

Science isn't wisdom because it is fact based. A pure scientific system has no wisdom.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 04:53 pm
@spendius,
You are blind; religion has caused more violence, wars, and the mistreatment of human assets since it was created by man centuries ago.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2012 06:11 pm
@cicerone imposter,
So?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 05:37:32