61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 02:09 pm
@spendius,
spendi wrote,
Quote:
What does "still function in a world of information" mean?


No wonder you are so ****'n confused! It's self-explanatory to most people, but you have difficulty with the simplest concepts.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 02:15 pm
@cicerone imposter,
If it's so easy explain what it means. I'm fucked if I know.

Is the checkout girl not functioning because she's ignorant and stupid regarding "much" of science?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 02:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
spendis biggest attempt at literary effort is to periodically request the meanings of phrases I often use. Im sure he gets em but hes just playing his best Homo floriensis . That is of course if hes relly NOT Homo floriensis
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 02:47 pm
@farmerman,
I haven't the faintest idea what --"I cant see how you proudly proclaim your utter ignorance and stupidity of much of science and still function in a wordl of information." means other than it means whatever you decide to have it mean. Which we are justified in assuming will be flattering to yourself.

It's a RIC circularity.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 03:12 pm
@spendius,
The "world of information" simplified for dummies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od8oTWqaDxE
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 03:34 pm
@spendius,
Since the comment wasnt even ment for you, all youve done is make a nice interference so that gunga could skitter away without ever producing a stripchart of any evidence. Hes the one Im trying to button down. You are a gnat on a bears ass. Imprtant only if you carry some transmissable disease.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 03:59 pm
@farmerman,
That's just a "for the moment" idea. gunga has hardly participated here.

You use the word "disease" in your normal fashion. Your assumption that what is transmitted is a disease wins you your argument before you start. That's the idea. That you can't be wrong in your own mind. If it is a disease you must be right.

And the whole debate is which side is diseased.

I suppose saying that I'm a gnat on a bear's arse grants me permission to respond in kind but as such things are not arguments where intellectuals gather it is not my style. Which doesn't mean I can't do it.

You're an assertion machine and that's just a fact. And you start every day fresh with the same small bunch of assertions and have been doing it so long using what must pass for authority in the circles you move in that you don't even know you're doing it.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 05:26 pm
@spendius,
go gnat!!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 05:26 pm
@spendius,
Which means you are a very silly moo indeed and have been picking and choosing your company to minimise the chances of being laughed at.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 05:30 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
you are a very silly moo
Well, there goes your boast that you dont engage in name calling eh?

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2012 05:46 pm
@farmerman,
Oh I can do it fm. You needn't worry about that. The next time you try the gnat on the bear's arse type of tripe (do you use ass because you're a bit neurotic-- it's the nipsy actually) I might leap at the opportunity for some alliterative fun on the letter "p" involving words like pimple, pustule, popping, puss and penis on a partially prehensile possum. With a "f" for flaccid to pep up the fun for the viewers.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2012 10:30 am
Quote:
States should stop trying to push religion into classrooms
(By Claire Vriezen, Iowa State Daily, Opinion Essay, February 9, 2012)

Once again, a state is trying to pass an underhanded bit of legislation that would be used to inject religious views into a public school science classroom. At the end of January, the Indiana Senate approved a bill that would allow schools to teach "various theories of the origin of life." While the legislation still has to pass through committee and the Indiana House of Representatives, the fact that creationist legislation has once again been introduced at a state level is troubling, to say the least.

Since the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005, it was ruled that attempting to teach "intelligent design" was the equivalent of teaching creationism, a distinctly religious idea, and was not permissible in the science classrooms of public schools. Despite this clear Supreme Court ruling, multiple states and school districts have continued to attempt adding creation "science" to public school classrooms.

The text of Indiana's proposed legislation originally read as follows: "Sec. 18. The governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation."

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, this bill did not even attempt to disguise teaching creationism as the less threatening intelligent design. And it is a certainty that any attempt to teach "creation science" in schools will be a distinctly Christian creation story, considering the current religious demographics of the United States.

It then becomes telling that the bill was amended to read somewhat differently after it passed through the Indiana Senate. The text of the current bill removes the use of the term "creation science" and adds on "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." The change was introduced by Sen. Vi Simpson, D-Bloomington, in a move she hoped would bluntly point out the religious implications of the bill. The sponsor of the bill stated that he disliked the change to the bill but hoped that it would increase support.

Thankfully, after a good deal of opposition from the scientific community, the House speaker noted that this issue was something that had previously been ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme Court, and this amendment may be a "side issue and someplace we don't need to go." It is questionable whether the bill will progress further, but the fact that it was introduced gives yet another look at the climate towards evolution in schools in America.

While it could be argued that the phrasing of the bill doesn't specify the curriculum be implemented in a science classroom, the original text of the bill that contained the phrase "creation science," implying an intended change to the science curriculum, and the topic of the origin of life is usually reserved for a life sciences or biology course.

Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Wheatfield, considers the current wording of the bill to be "no different than any history of philosophy class we would offer in high school or a curriculum setting." If, perhaps, this bill was for the discussion of creation stories among various religions and taught in the context of a history, religion or philosophy course, there would be little issue. However, presenting any creation stories — regardless of which religion they stem from — as scientific ideas violates the fundamentals of scientific theories.

Evolution is taught as a valid theory and set of facts because it is such. In science, facts refer to things that are directly observable. Measurements, observations and data all constitute facts. Facts that support the theory of evolution include things like the extensive fossil record, DNA sequencing data and experiments or observations of the evolution of species in a lab or natural setting.

Additionally, a theory in science refers to "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence." Well accepted theories include the theory of heliocentricity, the germ theory of disease, the theory of gravity and the theory of plate tectonics, to name a few. Evolution is the theory that explains all the facts we have collected with regards to the mutability of species. Theories must also be falsifiable and can be used to predict about the world.

Creation stories are not equivalent ideas to tested and refined scientific theories and, as such, should not be taught alongside evolution. They cannot be falsified, nor do they have predictive power. On a further note, the state legislature of Indiana should not be spending time arguing about whether to amend the curriculum to allow for the addition of religious ideas in a science classroom. There are surely better uses of the time and resources of the state legislature.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2012 10:41 am
It never does your argument good to get the facts wrong. Kitzmiller was not a Supreme Court ruling.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2012 11:04 am
@Setanta,
Maybe she meant "The Supreme Court of Reason."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2012 11:06 am
Maybe she's just a self-righteous dummy . . . more likely, she was just being careless.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2012 11:07 am
By the way, my criticism is motivated by the all too common human trait of jumping on an error, while ignoring the entire intent of the message. Someone who wishes to deny what she's written would likely just point out that Kitzmille was never reviewd by the Supremes, and leave it at that.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2012 11:17 am
I almost didn't read the rest of the article when i saw that fallacious claim. This is also a problem, the tendency to say to one's self, "Well, she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about," and pay no further attention. At facebook, there was an ad for a service to help you get your "Ex" back, with this text: "Well, if you really want her back then you need read this articel right now dont be late!" Leaving aside my suspicion that it wasn't written by a native speaker of English, i'm not going to have any faith in someone who either can't properly spell article, and who left out the "to" before read, or who doesn't care enough to proofread their copy.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2012 11:32 am
@Setanta,
I read and read that paragraph with the intent of"throwiing her the benefit of the doubt" in that she was COMPARING the supreme courts decision re Cretion SCience to Intelligent Design from Kitzmiller v Dover. However, the more I red it, the more i agree with set that shes just a sloppy thinker and writer.

I do like her summary points though. Its something weve been challenging gunga on for years and hes never been able to back anything up on his views> The only thing hes ever produced are those stupid anti-science cartoons and some writing based on incredulity of the Bobble thumpers. Evidence free means its not a theory, its a myth..
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2012 11:36 am
I guess i'm having a bad writing day, as in a bad reaction to peoples' writing. There's a thread out there which has MPHs in the title. I won't even open the thread. Hello . . . MPH already means miles per hour.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2012 12:08 pm
@wandeljw,
wande love--We know that The Iowa State Daily is an independent student newspaper serving Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa and, as such, is bound to reflect the opinions of the brainybox swottie swots.

I'm sorry that Ms Vriezen is troubled by these dramatic events in Indiana. It isn't really right that young ladies should be troubled imo. They have enough to worry about as it is.

Since when did elected representatives need Ms Vriezen to instruct them about better uses of the time and resources of the state legislature.

How did she come by her position?

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/07/2025 at 06:17:24