Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

he gives off vibes that hes focused on just a few words that he uses over and over, be damned that they often dont fit his point of discussion..

I'm not stuck in Christian metaphor. I'm stuck in practical politics. I'm not like you in trying to achieve a static solution for a dynamic situation. A political foundation is nothing without a practical foundation to sit upon. It becomes a starry-eyed utopianism.

84% of Indianans are the foundation I sit upon. I resist the idea that such a faction in a successful manufacturing and science based economy, going to the polls every two years, are deluded or being exploited by a bunch of crazy priests.

You can rant all you like, and as plausibly as you like, concerning the weakness of your opponent's position but if you allow that to blind you to the vulnerabilities of your own position you will get nothing but a thrumming indignation.

The obvious vulnerabilities in your position are highlighted by those questions asked of you which you have used one method or another to put on Ignore. And there are a very large number of them. As there are in wande's case. ci. and ros are of no account.

You apply the naturalistic fallacy to everything you think about. All considerations you embrace are of a normative kind. You know what is "good" and there's an end of all argument.

You should be providing temptations to believers to convert but you can't because you're a closet believer yourself. This empirical evidence stuff is simply a pose and only applicable in certain limited circumstances such as matter.

When you beam with approval at a flagella creature, so complex as to be incomprehensible to the likes of us, being compared to a bicycle pump under oath with a judge looking seriously on you can bet that his reason is that he's spotted a way of being more noticed than usual and your reason is having a ride on his coat-tails.

Here's a question for the viewers to wait for your answer to-- do you still think that comparison at Dover was a sensible thing to have brought before a senior member of the American judiciary as empirical evidence?

Here's another--are you happy that the defence didn't bring evidence of evolution style rumpy-pumpy? You called one excerpt I gave from a scientific study of monkeys, and they are our nearest neighbours on the mythical Tree of Life, a picture of which will be on the wall in all evolution classes, "porn".

My, my--did I laugh. I've made the lads in the pub laugh too with the story.

I thought that--



a rather tasty expression. It has redolence.

I believe that you are the one ranting. You seem to be stuck on everyone ignoring your POV, even though you seem to forget taht science isnt assembled by democracy. Was it Giotto who stated that all great advances are individual?.
If you wish to submit the laws of physics to a popular vote, Im afraid of what will happe to us, but it sure wont be physics.

so does a liter of putrescene

What the hell is "thiest" supposed to mean?

I generally attempt to avoid cognitive bias, such deviates from logical consistency.

What am I proposing?

Uncertainty, I am arguing logic.



Your attempts of relativism are illogical, it did not refute my arguement, an "overuse" of my arguements, perhaps.

I await your feedback, is this linguistic deviation "more direct (read less pompous)"?

Though, I do personally interpret this pretentious, do you acknowledge the concept of subjectivity?



What do you believe in?
Evolution should be practiced in schools?
What is the truth reliability of this proposition?
Is it becuase you believe it to be the 'right' practice for humans, perhaps being that it is 'rational'?
Are you appealing to normatives?
Does science suggest that humans OUGHT TO practice scientific methodology?
Is science sentient?
Are you CERTAIN that it is not you that modals this inference?



Premise: farmerman asserted that positivism is obligatory.
Conclusion: farmerman is appealing to normatives.

Science is neutral.

Simply, the usefulness of a modal is open to interpretation.

I wouldn't know about that fm.

You're kidding Ano. fm can't be asked questions of that nature. He can't even to afford to understand them and has to be allowed to portray such incomprehension, real or faked, as staking out the moral high ground.

He ventured into an international debate forum innocently thinking that the customers were similar to those in his usual round and that he could puff out his chest on a larger stage with the same facilities as he has become habituated to.

You should take that into account when you address him, as I always do.

when do you plan to start? Your debate skills are mere rondos of three or four principal wordws.

You need to engage the subject a bit more. Theres hardly anything worth commenting in your last post

no youre not, you are merely engaging in gainsay and its getting a bit boring

Im the only one between us that is arguing any fact. Denial without substance is not an argument (unless you live in a Monty Python
skit)


Evolution is TAUGHT in public and private high school biology and natural science curricula. It is mandated by law. The law is establ;ished by a state or Commonwealth education committee that reports to the states boards of education (These Boards or Education have been established by state constitutional laws and require standards of proficiency be maintained in education).
The "truth" is established in this being upheld in starre decisis in the several states the Federl Courts and the FEderal Government which, periodically, through the Federal Dept of Education, sets overall goals of educational attainment .(Witness the most recent versions of the ed progaram and philosophy entitled "No Child LEft BEhind", Even though this "Guidance " document has been applied in the states, several states have really modified the statute to re-define their entire ed programs such that , despite the NCLB guidance, these states still teach the nuances and in-depth derivations and interdisciplanary information of a subject.
States like Delaware and the commonwealth of Kentucky, previously two of the poorest states in ed results, have embraced several tenets of NCLB and remodified the statute to their own needs. They have produced statistically higher numbers of science literate kids based upon a modification theyd made in NCLB.

The issue of "teaching evolution" (which is, after all the subject of this thread) is either firmly established in the states or is under review by the legislatures that periodically wish to attack the simple concept as they picture themselves as standardbearers of the morals of their constituents. In this approach ,The legislatures( like the most recent debacle in Indiana) are in a fools game because the Federal Courts and the Supreme Court have already provided very clear guidance in several key decision regarding the teaching of evolution and only evolution in SCIENCE CLASSES. Indiana merely tucked its head in, in an election year where many of the lower house legislators and at least 1/3 of the Senators are up for election. These legislators know full well that they are courting disaster in that some school district will become the focus of the national press as they undergo some foolish "Scopes trial" , except in the present tense, SCopes would win based upon the precedent set under Edwards v Aguillard in 1987.

The challenges to good science teaching have all been rather pathetic in that, once a principle tenet of Creation "Science" is ruled against, the same people merely change the spots of their leopard and introduce him as an entirely new species to some other host state. The fight against teaching "SCientific Creationism" (an oxymoron worthy of a place in any deviants dictionary) reached a denoument in the 1987 SUpreme Court decision from its Bible thumping base in Louisiana. SO, instead of learning to modify its creed (like most Christian Churches have done in W Europe and the US), the Fundamenatlists have merely retooled their spiehl and have called their standard "Intelligent Design" after a discourse by a reverend in 1803, but more importantly for us, from a book entitled "Darwin on Trial" from the year AFTER the AGuillard decision . The newly minted "Intelligent Designers" even modified their original Creationism SCience Books and merely removed the word "Creation" and inserted INtelligent Design".
That standard was shot down in the 3rd Fed District Court in 2005. Now we autiously wait for any new formats to arise in the Fundamentlist war against science education. SO far , the standard of
"TEACH THE CONTROVERSY"
"TEACH THE SHORTCOMINGS OF EVOLUTION"
are some of the newest twists on the "evolution" of their Science Creedo. I dont believe that we have seen the last of these clowns ( thats my opinion so dont get angry if I dont feel that theres any argument that you uphold)

All the major religions of the Christains , most Jews, and Most Muslims do not deny the FACT of evolution. AS Pope Benedict recently said "The evidence is ow=verwhelming " and even he admitted that it was silly to deny thsi fact. Instead, Catholicism sees the concepot of a God of their choice is in charge of the process. I have no real problems with Pope Benedicts pronouncememt.Just so long as its not being forced into a place of fact in science class

I believe you're wasting your time, FM. Especially as this member seems enamored of the sound of his or her own voice repeating a mantra of philosophical garba . . . er, jargon. What's more, it doesn't even have the redeeming entertainment value of a Gunga Dim rant.

The authentic voice of anti-intellectualism in all its plodding, populist, predictable pomp. What ever is said to it the reflex is always the same serving as it does to not only provide no rebuttal, to recycle some old bus queue conversational gambits and yet to remain sat at the table.

Pitifully pandering to Gunga is a tactic early teenage girls use isolate others who cannot be managed any other way.

And the "seems" marks a profound lack of conviction. A jelly wobble.

There is no garba . . . er, jargon (more wobbling) in--



It is a straight question and a well known one. It has not been answered. Hence the snowstorm. The confusion. The running away.

Same with this--



On a science thread that's elementary. And goes unanswered.

well, it was very early in the morn and I hadnt had any coffee yet. SO I may have recycled some of my own blather.
I think anomie chose his handle well. He seems to have been void of regular past interaction. Thats where he became smitten with the color of his own scribbles.

I was the first on here to ask Anomie why he chose such a username.

Two of our leading newspapers carried front page banner headlines "CHRISTIANITY UNDER ATTACK". An atheist had persuaded a judge to ban the long tradition of prayers before council meetings.

An invitation, if ever there was one, for the elected officials to pursue their own personal interest. Not that they need much encouragement already without removing the ritual reminder that they ought not to do.

Once Grace before meals, and I'll bet all you anti-IDers have bowed your heads and looked respectful when Grace was being said, becomes defunct you have ended up with a dog over its bowl. Explain to me how you haven't. There's only the creature enjoying the carnal delights of guzzling when peckish left. Surely? So don't forget to wag your tails when your owner brings forth the dishes.

The Financial Times, in these dynamic days of financial confusion, had recently its main front page article headed by "BOOM IN DISHONESTY". I didn't read the article because I am well aware of the boom in dishonesty and I daresay the FT had toned it down. It's editor, being a pretty decent chap, probably was holding out a tad of hope that we might become better. A stiff upper lip going down with the ship.

What possible hope can an evolutionist offer except that we don't all become evolutionists. An evolutionist is required to praise a boom in dishonesty as one is required to praise Dr Conrad Murray for pursuing a purely selfish interest, which I don't fully accept he was, and getting 8 new human beings, possibly one a future line-backer or ladies Olympic shot-putt gold medallist, out of five females.

I'm well aware, possibly too well aware, that the evolutionist can apply administrative methods to curb our baser natures but will the administrators curb their own. The NCSE has walls around it which can only be penetrated under approval and the lady congresswoman who was shot is empirical proof that our politicians can't afford such luxuries as walls around them and anybody who doesn't think that that gives our politicians the right to say what goes is a communist.

And happy to suffer under the burden of directives couched in language that contains, ideally, no ambiguities such as those the Bible is over-flowing with, in the almost forlorn hope that one day, with the right amount of tail-wagging and ear-cocking, it might be possible to issue directives themselves.

So there's a bit or ordinary language to contrast with Anomie's more academic stuff.

Come on Gunga--save them from oblivion.

They can't handle the piss-head or the Professor.

I was thinking, walking home from the pub last night on the very uneven highway, that James Joyce would have liked-- "Your relative is a semantical repercussion." Had he heard such an expression at a party, and he went to a lot of parties, I feel sure he would have sneaked off into a corner and jotted it down in his notebook knowing full well that he could easily find somewhere in his prose to fit it in.

You really have no idea what youre talking about do you?

I agree, Joyce was constantly loving to make up Jabberwocky

No, I'm guessing, but I like making you provide responses like that so that viewers can see an exhibition of your idea of empirical evidence when you have no other to counter my guesses with.

Which implies that there isn't any and also that my guesses are more likely to be correct. An implication I feel it is impossible to avoid drawing.

The NCSE is responsible for its own image and the one I have of it is that it is a closed off space issuing directives, passing handouts to friendly "journalists" (they have even wrecked that fine word), publishing glossy periodicals and sending out demands for subscription renewals. Oh--a letters column for tweaking egos with.

You were invited to contradict that image and all you can say in defence is "You really have no idea what youre talking about do you?" As if that is any sort of defence.

I only have this thread's image of the Discovery Institute.

There's no Jabberwocky in Joyce. He could have tossed off the Lewis Carroll stuff at a penny a word any time he fancied.