Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@spendius,

YOu called it "purification of wisdom." ROFL

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

He meant to put a" t" before the "r"

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

I was pointing out that that is the burden of the propaganda you seem to uncritically swallow whole.

This is your subjective opinion and it is incorrect because I do not consider all of what he says as factual but rather much of it subjective. Kind of the same way I consider the things that you share.

Quote:

. He does not have a PhD, and doesn't deserve to be described as "Dr." Duke. He was vilified as an undergraduate at Tulane University for his parties on Hitler's birthday,

This seems to be some more of your subjective opinions along with facts and incorrect information. It Seems that he may have a PHD but I do not expect you to research the credibility of it.

Quote:

You get judged by the company you keep, you know, whether or not you think that is fair.

Yes it does seem as though people do judge biased at times.

Quote:

i don't intend to waste my time on the videos with which you constantly spam this board.

So does this mean that I will not hear this statement again?

My main interest is human behavior and I have found that many people judge other people's credibility on their ideology but it does not seem that a persons ideology gets in their way of being correct about reality all of the time.

I think that religious people have it very wrong about their religion being correct but that does not disable them from becoming doctors or holding other technical positions in life.
Some people believe in all sorts of crazy things but yet many of these people vote and are voted for. Not only is it people that have these types of beliefs that succeed but people of many other so called mental disorders {such as anti social personalities and obsessive compulsive personalities} can be successful at getting some things correct as well.
I talk to many people that I find out of touch with reality but yet they can be very intelligent about certain subjects.
It seems that you and many other people judge people on the things you hold against them and do not give a chance for some of what they are saying as being correct.

Many religious people will not even consider what an atheist has to say about religion, "regardless if it could it can be true because it goes against their beliefs even though an atheist may be closer to the truth than the religious person on the subject at hand.
Religious people are not the only ones who have this confirmation bias problem.

0 Replies

@wmwcjr,

Quote:

You admire this guy, reasoning logic?

Not really.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

YOu called it "purification of wisdom." ROFL

So do many scholars.

You were asked what conclusion you have come to from your statement--

Quote:

You are blind; religion has caused more violence, wars, and the mistreatment of human assets since it was created by man centuries ago.

And you haven't answered.

What alternative approach are you suggesting should have been taken centuries ago?

Quote:

A pure scientific system has no wisdom.

And you have failed to respond to that too.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

DAvid Duke "earned" a PhD in 2005 from a really great institution. The Interregional Academy of PErsonnel Management (an accredited institution of higher learning in the UKRAINE). The Academy , appears as real as the Discovery Institutres ability to confer degrees in "evolution".
The Academy has been singled out as one of the most racist and anti semitic publishing house second to Iran.

Dave Dukes Dissertation was on a subject that needs a lot of research. He apparently did a large work denying the Holocaust and coming out against Zionism.

Can you imagine a place like the University of Wisconsin offering to assemble a doctoral committee to review a dissertation that denies the forensic evidence of the Holocaust?

Sometimes you really need to question the motives and veracity of a potential source before you even waste time on asking quetions about "what does anyone think about?" your topic.
Youve lost a lot of credibility in several minds here. Im wondering now whether all of your previous posts that many of us took time to answer were just pieces of tripe and that maybe your entire motivation is somehow more under the table racism than anything else.

Your collection of stupid racist propaganda that you have at your fingertips and periodically post, reveals a lot about you. Do you realize that or dont you care.?

2 Replies

Quote:

An open letter to the Indiana legislature
(P Z Myers, Scienceblogs.com, February 2, 2012)

The Indiana Senate has approved this bill: "The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology."

I've heard a few complaints from Hoosiers about this, including teachers. One high school science teacher has asked me to post this open letter on the subject; they've asked that I not include their name, which is sad in itself. Not only is the legislature passing stupid laws, but the environment is so oppressive that the science teachers who are expected to implement it cannot speak out against it, for fear of losing their jobs. Indiana, you suck.

At least I don't have to worry about the politicians of Indiana gunning for my job, so I can post this letter for my correspondent.

Honorable Representatives of the state of Indiana,

I am quite dismayed to learn of the passage of SB 89 which will give Indiana school boards the authority to require the teaching of various origin stories in public schools. There are several reasons I feel this is an inappropriate action for our state to take.

First, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1987 in Edwards v. Aguillard that balanced treatment of creationism and evolution violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Then in 2005 the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania ruled against the inclusion of Intelligent Design in the science curriculum. As Judge Jones wrote, "To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy." Now it appears that the citizens of Indiana are being poorly served. If this becomes law, our citizens will have to foot the bill for the lawsuits that will certainly ensue.

Second, I appreciate Indiana's need to educate our citizens about the beliefs and cultures of our planet's people. Our students would greatly benefit from learning about the multitude of worldviews that exist, in a philosophy or comparative religion class. Such understanding would make our citizens better prepared for international commerce and political discourse. I do not believe that SB 89 was introduced for this reason, however. The implication is that the introduction of various religious beliefs would take place in the science class room. As a biologist and science teacher, I understand the evidence for evolution is as strong as the evidence for any other theory we teach. I also understand that religious belief is based on faith, which by definition requires no evidence. I do not comprehend how exposing my students to ideas based, not on evidence, but faith could constitute good science education. When I read that this bill will allow school boards to require the teaching of "theories from multiple religions", I interpret this to indicate that a school board may specify which religions may be taught. Two constitutes "multiple", so if a school board so chose, they could require teachers to teach Christian and Jewish creation ideas only, which are essentially the same. This would not serve to enlighten students on the diversity of ideas, but to reinforce ideas that either they already hold or that they will find in conflict with their beliefs. In either case, it could set students at odds with each other, while not teaching any science at all.

If I am misinterpreting the spirit of this bill, please change the language to indicate that this is not to be applied to science classes, and/or specify which religions' views must be taught if the local school board chooses to require this. In my opinion, if this is to be done in any way consistent with spirit of the Establishment Clause, all religious views must be taught. In this case, teachers will not be able to cover the state science standards in 180 days and also teach religion.

Third, the misunderstanding of the word theory in the bill is a sad indication of the ignorance of the authors. In science, the word "theory" does not mean an "idea". A theory is an explanation for how something happens, based on a great deal of research which has been reviewed, published, tested, re-tested, accepted by most scientists in the field, and not yet disproven. No religion has a "theory" of the origins of life that meets the criteria we require to give an idea the full weight of the title "theory" in science. I would be happy to speak with any representative who would like to learn more about what the theory of evolution actually says and what evidence supports it.

Sincerely,

Indiana High School Science Teacher

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Your collection of stupid racist propaganda that you have at your fingertips and periodically post, reveals a lot about you. Do you realize that or dont you care.?

RL seems to be wide-eyed and accepting of everything. He seems to think he is embarking on some form of intellectual pursuit by listening to a bunch of clearly flawed sources. It's not just racist propaganda he posts, he regularly posts Iranian and Russian propaganda, and despite claiming to be an atheist posts videos from David Icke, a self proclaimed messiah who believes the Queen is a shape shifting lizard.

I once actually watched one of his videos, some mad woman with a megaphone claiming that America was still (secretly) part of the British Empire.

He clealy cannot distinguish between the wheat and the chaff, that wouldn't be too bad were it not for the fact that he insists on foisting the chaff on the rest of us.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

P Z Meyers (not to be confused with the IDer Meyers) was one of those who was denied entry to a theater when the Ben Stein movie about ID was shown in theaters a few years ago.
The entire theme of the movie was a claim as to how " religious science teachers" who confess a belief in ID were being ostracized and punished by their institutions.(actually they were pretty much left alone in their institutions esepcially if, like Mike Behe, they had achieved tenured positions) SO when the IDers had an opportunity, they showed how they could practice exclusion , segregation, and punitive actions against any "non-believers"

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I just hdnt reviewed too many of RL's clips. Whenever I did I was always kind of shocked at how naive he seemed to be by his questions that preceeded the clips. NOW , Ive got a better idea of his worldview.
At least now I wont have to wste any time in trying to answer him.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I stopped a while ago, I asked him to summarise the main points and I would respond. He can't do that, instead he just keeps pleading with me to watch the video. If someone is unable to summarise something, they shouldn't expect you to watch it.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

SO when the IDers had an opportunity, they showed how they could practice exclusion , segregation, and punitive actions against any "non-believers"

Those particular IDers fm. Assuming you are correct. Not IDers generally. On that hopeless line of argument we have to conclude that all American soldiers will commit certain acts if a few do.

You should try to remember that you are a self-appointed spokesman for one side in this debate and anything you post has a tendency to signify to neutrals the position of that side. You speak on behalf of anti-ID and anti-IDers are associated with what you say. If I was one I would be appalled.

This debate has nothing to do with Ben Stein, P Z Meyers, Mike Behe etc etc. It has to do with State rights in opposition to Federal rights.

wande is a Federal employee.

The bill approved by the Indiana Senate had the word "may" in it. A Federal directive with such a word in it would have no point.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

It has to do with State rights in opposition to Federal rights.

Thats the point I was considering about how you dont seem to understand our Constitution and its breadth of responsibility. The first amendment isnt negotiable among the several states. It doesnt "reserve" any options to the states. Freedom of anf FROM religion, as well as separation as per our secukar state is what was intended and has been supported by numerous Supreme Court decisions.
Try reading some more or just shut the **** up with your silliness.

If you believe everything in the newspapers then I suppose you know that theyve found the Loch Ness monster in a pub near Inverness.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Quote:
An open letter to the Indiana legislature
(P Z Myers, Scienceblogs.com, February 2, 2012)

That was a very respectfully worded. If Christopher Hitchens had been around to write something similar, I don't think it would have sounded quite as respectful.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I'm nearly through Max Beloff's book about Federal government in the US. I accept I "don't seem to understand" these matters. That's why I read books about the subject. Beloff thinks it's almost incomprehensible anyway.

That you think you understand is just self-flattering nonsense.

I don't read newspapers. Even wande has to go to self-interested bloggers and it's the same banal shite everytime as are your idiotic posts born of self admiration. If blogs have value how do you separate holocaust denying blogs from what you like reading?

The answer is obvious. Pick what you want from the vast menu according to your bigoted and prejudiced received opinions. Tunnel vision in other words. Science is not your strong point fm.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

You're in over your head fm and your bombastic, unscientific blather is a sure-fire signifier of the fact.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Thats always what I have grown to expect from you when you are exposed for your ignorance on a subject.
Whether I am or am not totally ignorant in science is something that always gets me going each day. The only answer to ignorance is even more education and research. The difference between us is that I dont just sit on a pub stool complaining why others arent as intelligent as I.

Im sorry if youve taken offense at my brusque impatience of your ignorance of our Constitution. Id think that, after 6 or so years of this , youd at least have gotten an inkling about our first amendment rights and restrictions. Apparently not.

Its probably not the beer, its your Jamesons chasers

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

Quote:
An open letter to the Indiana legislature
(P Z Myers, Scienceblogs.com, February 2, 2012)

That was a very respectfully worded. If Christopher Hitchens had been around to write something similar, I don't think it would have sounded quite as respectful.

For me, the key argument in the letter is: "In this case, teachers will not be able to cover the state science standards in 180 days and also teach religion."

1 Reply

@farmerman,

What does ignorance on a subject mean? That's what I mean by blather. Worthless foam from the fingers. I don't know nothing about your system.

I know that the President is hamstrung by House and Senate, which are equals constitutionally but possibly not in practice, their committees, sub committees, conference committees, lobbyists, media, both with formal and informal connections to these committees and to the House and the Senate, and witnesses called before them; the folks back home from the boondocks where electricity is the work of Satan to the wine bars in Manhattan where it is thought that milk comes from a shop, and God knows what else in that seething maelstromic camp called Washington, and that he doesn't like it for the precise reason that that lot of diddicos are restricting his exercise of executive power which his temperamental obsession with doing drove him through many trials and tribulations to seek to do. And he gets the blame for everything not going right and that lot try to steal the credit when it does.

He is less hamstrung, but not by a lot, when his party has majorities in the House and Senate and can appoint chairmen of these committees who are thought sound guys but only if the pork barrels keep rolling in. Flip-flopping optional.

It's not really the point. The point is whether the extension of the power of the Executive Office, already of a formidable size, is necessary for America to compete in the future with well-oiled machines in other countries where executive power cuts the mustard and energy is exported.

And $16 trillion deficits are not cutting the mustard.

A bunch of blokes who look like Plato could have a good time on 16 trillion ******* greenbacks. Chickens do come home to roost they said in the old days when they usually did. They still do in a few places. I saw an American TV programme dangling temptations before the slightly sub-conscious nostalgia for the simple life from which the Dude Ranch idea derived, in which a lady of a certain age had to look around in the grass for the eggs her chickens had laid. One of the ads between which the programme was squeezed was for the latest thing in European motor vehicle technology displayed against a 5th Avenue backdrop Shakespeare would have reduced a tenant's rent for. Her homemade pies looked fantastic.

Foreign policy is completely dependent on the efficiency of the homeland. And that might or might not be achieved by the extension of executive power. I think it will. I don't think Spengler's Caesar will appear. I think he will evolve.

"Let's overturn these tables, disconnect these cables,
This place don't make sense to me no more.
Can you tell me what we're waiting for
Senor?"

I know a bit about your system and I'm learning more everyday. That's not ignorance. So pipe down with that **** and write us a post as good as that. Eh?

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

For me, the key argument in the letter is: "In this case, teachers will not be able to cover the state science standards in 180 days and also teach religion."

I think the key idea is that they shouldn't be allowed to foist off religion as though it were science, regardless of how much time they consume doing it.

Even if someone came along and doubled the length of the school year or doubled the amount of time spent on science education, religion still shouldn't be allowed to fill the extra space.

People in general and students in particular are being done a dis-service by not understanding the difference between faith and empiricism.

1 Reply

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know