61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2012 06:09 am
INDIANA UPDATE
Quote:
Indiana House speaker kills bill that would let creationism be taught in science class
(Scott Elliott, Indianapolis Star, February 15, 2012)

A bill that would have allowed schools to teach creationism along with evolution in science classes has died in the Indiana House.

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, moved the bill to the rules committee, a procedural step that all but ensures it will not make it to a vote this year. The bill cleared the Indiana Senate last month but needed to pass both chambers to become law.

Bosma said he made the move to avoid the possibility of a costly lawsuit for the state, given the likelihood of a court challenge from evolution advocates.

"I felt, given the fact that we have a U.S. Supreme Court case that appears to me to be directly on point, that this is a fight that really should not be fought at this point."

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.

The state Senate bill did not have such a requirement but in effect offered state support for school districts that decided to teach creationism, likely drawing it into any lawsuits.

"I didn't disagree with the concept of the bill," Bosma said.

The bill's author, Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, said last month that the makeup of the Supreme Court had changed and it could rule differently next time. He could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2012 06:25 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
yet on its face it appears innocuous...
I'm sure it's intended that way. But just because the camel sticks its toe under the tent instead of its nose doesn't mean the same thing isn't happening.

Besides, Bills need to be written when there's a problem that needs to be addressed. Yet the only problem I know of in science classes is that kids don't get enough of it, and they can sometimes be given the wrong impression of the import and validity of certain theories, namely biological evolution. So the direction this Bill is leading, however slightly, is clearly in the wrong direction. The only thing this Bill can possibly do for the people of New Hampshire is to lessen the value and accuracy of the scientific education already being given to our kids.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2012 06:33 am
@wandeljw,
Quote:
I didn't disagree with the concept of the bill," Bosma said.

not exactly a powerful endorsement of the whole schmagegga. Im really amazed that the state legislators dont have a periodic update on significant decsions of the courts . Hell, its only been in 2001 whenAlabama dropped its anti miscegenation laws , even though USSC had declared these laws unconstitutional like 40 years earlier.

I was listening to an NPR about the "Loving v Virginia" case where the appellate judge ruled that
"God put all the races in different parts of the world map in order to make sure that they didnt intermix" Therefore the Lovings were declared an illegal union and they had to leave the Commonwealth (Then the ACLU took the case to the USSC). I never realized that many of these decisions were originally made by a bunch of Billy Bob judges who used all this religious crap to justify just about anything they wish.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2012 06:36 am
@rosborne979,
YOU better watch it ros. Too mjuch of that kind of talk could lead to you getting involved. Ill hold your coat.

Keep an eye on that one cause they were supposed to have had hearings on both bills by Feb 14. SO something should be forthcoming from NH.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2012 07:17 am
@farmerman,
Why are you guys so obsessed with biological evolution? It has to be emotional as Marx implies. Very few people are obsessed with the matter and it's usefulness is not only a specialised subject which anybody interested can read about easily enough but the farmers, pigeon fanciers, racehorse breeders and rose growers knew all about it long before Darwin piled up his descriptions of the what, where and when and was strangely ambiguous about the why, the how and the whence.

You're in it for the money or for self-validation.

In the 1987 USSC decision what were the arguments before the court?

Quote:
The moral law had expired--like the Constitution.


Henry Adams.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2012 11:47 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:

Testimony heard on evolution education bill in NEw HAmphire

By TED SIEFER
New Hampshire Union Leader
Published Feb 15, 2012 at 3:00 am (Updated Feb 16, 2012)



CONCORD — A hearing for a bill that would require the teaching of evolution as a theory, not scientific fact, drew heated testimony Tuesday.

Bill sponsor Rep. Jerry Bergevin, R-Manchester, told the House Education Committee panel that his concerns about evolution went beyond its claimed unsoundness as a theory.

“Nations that supported atheism and evolution destroyed more human beings than any others in history,” Bergevin said, referring to the Nazis, Soviets and Chinese communists.

“Evolution,” he added, “is the air supply of atheism.”

House Bill 1148 would “require evolution to be taught in the public schools of this state as a theory, including the theorists' political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism.”

No one testified in support of Bergevin's bill, however, it did face several opponents, including representatives from the New Hampshire Science Teachers Association and the N.H. School Administrators Association — as well as Jackson Hinkle, a 10-year-old student from Nashua.

This bill “would be a blow to our educational system, which is already in a bad state,” Hinkle told the panel in a quiet voice. “If evolution was not presented in the scientific sense, but rather the colloquial, people would be denied modern scientific information.”

Another student, Matthew Lounsbury, a high school senior from Wolfeboro who is a member of the Legislature's Youth Advisory Council, said his group had voted unanimously to oppose the bill.

“We feel it's redundant,” he said. “Every high school senior remembers that evolution was taught as a theory. But the same point can also be applied to the theory of gravity.”

John Godfrey, of the science teachers group, emphasized that a scientific theory means more than just an idea, that it has to undergo rigorous scrutiny and testing.

“Evolution is at the extremely well-established end of the spectrum of scientific theories,” he said.

He added that the section of the bill concerning theorists' viewpoints on atheism was “a little bewildering.”

“It's absolutely impossible to compile such a database, and there's no use doing that,” he said. “Should we also say that (the scientist) was white or Christian? What does it matter what one's political persuasion is, as long as they do good science?”

Under its current minimum standards for public schools, the N.H. Department of Education requires local boards to include within high school biology curricula the teaching of “organic evolution and patterns and products of evolution, including genetic variation, specialization, adaptation and natural selection.”

HB 1148 is the second bill to come before the Education Committee that could affect the teaching of evolution. House Bill 1457, heard by the committee last week, requires that science teachers instruct students that proper scientific inquiry “results from not committing to any one theory or hypothesis, no matter how firmly it appears to be established.”

Members of the committee asked no questions and made almost no comments during the hearing, except to praise the students for participating.

The Catholic Diocese of Manchester is not taking a position on the bills.



To have no comment from the Diocese is kind of a cheap shot at the diocese. Everybody knows that It takes the Catholic Church a minimum of a century to consider serving chicken mcnuggets in school lunch.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 05:31 am
@farmerman,
Considering the various chemical substances that are fed to chickens to make them give the best bang per buck at the production level associated with supplying cheap chicken en masse for the children we love I hope the Church takes ten centuries to decide on that matter.

You might call it chicken fm but I don't. Properly produced chickens here are $15 and the forced ones are $4.

Quote:
Tertiary Butylhydroquinone (TBHQ)

This petroleum-based product is used to preserve vegetable oils and animal fats, both of which can be found in Chicken McNuggets. It is also used in the manufacture of Silly Putty. McDonalds uses this chemical in their American and Chinese McNuggets, but not in the United Kingdom. According to food experts interviewed on CNN (as reported in the Global Times of China), a gram of TBHQ consumed in one sitting can lead to "nausea, vomiting, ringing in the ears, delirium, a sense of suffocation and collapse."


Quote:
Dimethylpolysiloxane

This chemical is used to keep the oil from foaming when Chicken McNuggets are cooked. It is another Silly Putty ingredient, and is also used in some cosmetics. After testing on animals, no adverse health effects were found from dimethylpolysiloxane. Christopher Kimball, founder of Cook's Illustrated magazine, told CNN that he suspects the uniform size and shape of McNuggets owes something to the plastic-like properties of dimethylpolysiloxane. In the McDonald's restaurants of the United Kingdom, dimethylpolysiloxane is not a McNuggets ingredient.


Quote:
Sodium Aluminium Phosphate

This chemical is used as an emulsifier in McNuggets. It prevents the oils used in frying from separating, which helps keep McNuggets relatively grease-free. It also helps the chicken nuggets to maintain a uniform exterior texture. Processed cheese and bakery products make use of this chemical as well. Consuming pure aluminium impairs the body's ability to absorb calcium. However, sodium aluminium phosphate is considered safe for food products because it contains relatively low amounts of aluminium.


Quote:
Modified Food Starch

Modified starch is used as a binding agent for Chicken McNuggets to hold the chicken and breading together. It also helps enhance the size of McNuggets and make them a denser, more filling meal. Modified starch begins as corn starch, but is then altered in a laboratory to make it more resistant to dissolution. It is commonly used as a thickener in other food products, such as pies and sauces, and for binding purposes in paper manufacturing.


Scientists are at work on the school lunch. Whether they maintain their scientific integrity I don't know. I've heard rumours but such things don't belong on science threads.












0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 05:32 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:

Testimony heard on evolution education bill in NEw HAmphire

By TED SIEFER
New Hampshire Union Leader
Published Feb 15, 2012 at 3:00 am (Updated Feb 16, 2012)

“Evolution,” he [Bergevin] added, “is the air supply of atheism.”

This guy has real problems. Doesn't he know that rational thought and freedom from religious indoctrination are the air supply of atheism?

And not coincidentally, rational thought and freedom from religious indoctrination are also the air supply of science.

Bergevin just doesn't like freedom and rational thought.

And by the way, Hurray for New Hampshire! Where even the school kids are smarter than the state legislators.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 05:35 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

YOU better watch it ros. Too mjuch of that kind of talk could lead to you getting involved. Ill hold your coat.

Keep an eye on that one cause they were supposed to have had hearings on both bills by Feb 14. SO something should be forthcoming from NH.

I think it's fun that nobody spoke in support for Bergevin's Bill. Smile

Once my daughter is school age, if anyone tries this crap in her school you can bet your bippy they'll be hearing from me.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 05:43 am
@rosborne979,
So now we have rational thought, freedom from indoctrination, science, atheism and 10 year olds smarter than elected representatives all rolled up in one neat bundle.

ros ought to get on a kiddywinks website.

Does anybody think that plucky little Jackson was coached before appearing before the committee?

They sure are simple souls these anti-IDers.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 05:44 am
@spendius,
And they self-evidently think we are too.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 05:49 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Once my daughter is school age, if anyone tries this crap in her school you can bet your bippy they'll be hearing from me.


Maybe ros's resistance to paying 4 times the standard price for his daughter's nutrient is what his touching concern over her instruction is meant to obscure.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 06:10 am
@rosborne979,
looks like this wont go anywhere either eh? . EVery so often people must exert their stupid genes and waste the collective time of the legislative calendar on crap like this. However, maybe the message is getting through that this topic is not a fertile field for all minority- position assholes and their personal religious agendas.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 06:20 am
@farmerman,
That's really, really scientific fm. I hope you know that.

Can you not up your game a little and treat us with a bit more respect?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 09:40 am
@farmerman,
Look fm--it's about time we stopped buggering about. 7 or 8 years, and my my doesn't time fly whatever old Omar said about the rest, is quite sufficient for each side here to have run its routines past the opposition. Especially when they are boring and repetitive as your lot is determined to make them. You couldn't date your claques posts. They are the same now that they were at the beginning and probably before the beginning.

You can't say that of mine. I have used Able to Know to enable myself to know things I hadn't known previously. And it has been fruitful. My image of the US has been altered. I'm getting a glimpse of "knickers down" America. There's hardly a post of mine that is the same as another. Look at that one of yours--the "everybody's stupid" procedure. Okay--you have dotted the wrong "i" and crossed the wrong "t" to make it look original but it's as crusty as a cow pat that's been in the sun a few weeks. I've never seen a cow footprint in a cow pat. They are dainty creatures. They leave entropy to deal with their pats.

So I thought we might get down to brass tacks for a change.

President William Jennings Bryan once said that "It's a poor head that cannot find plausible reasons for doing what the heart wants to do". Now I know very well that Mr Bryan said a lot of idiotic things but that makes no difference to that statement in case you try that simple trick again. It stands as a statement. I think it is generally true and especially so on this thread.

If I use "convictions" instead of "heart" it's because I haven't got a heart. And we have spent all these years, very profitable to me, parading plausible reasons for our respective convictions.

I have the conviction that you cant answer the question "do you wish to see society with no religion? with an enthusistic, open armed, joy.

If you can't you're fucked. You're Half-Baked City.

I have another conviction. You daren't do that because you know I'll make mincemeat out of you if you do. I don't think you can imagine a society without religion. I can. Up to a point. The firesale of Christianity, never mind Islam, is the easy bit.

And I think your convictions are based upon the excitement that comes from the rejection of one's environment. In Professor Hofstadter's words--"The revolt of the youth against parental authority, of the village agnostic against the faith of his tribe, of the artist against the stereotypes (Giotto say--my joke) of philistine life, of the socialist against the whole bourgeois community......"

Matthew Arnold mentions the thrill of a student going against his teacher. Greek philosophy is built on that intellectual thrill. Bringing low the mighty as a first step to being mighty. Freud thought it was about killing the father to not have Mom's love shared although I don't think he studied those who were not bothered about Mom's love. The less attention my mother paid to me the better I liked it. Except when I was hungry of course. Or cold.

And then there's getting a young lady to go against her mother and father's advice. That's a double thrill.

Obviously the Father is in the frame too.

All in all, I think your convictions are subjective and mine are objective. When the Soviet experiment was started there was no TV.
Now there is. That's an enormously important change in the conditions of a religion free society.

Your "normative" despoilers of your posts are of no interest to anybody significant in this debate.



farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 09:56 am
@spendius,
Quote:
President William Jennings Bryan
There you go again, quoting one of our founding farters. Do you remember what WJ Bryant spoke of in his inauguration speech? Ill bet you have no fuckin idea. Im calling you a moron because you dont know what president Bryan had to say.


Quote:
I have used Able to Know to enable myself to know things I hadn't known previously.
Hows that going for you?

Quote:
"do you wish to see society with no religion?
Id rather see a society wherein all the positions of whether to believe or not believe are treated with equal respect and not, as is the present situation in US, where some minority-view religionists are attempting to make their beliefs become law .

Quote:
Matthew Arnold mentions the thrill of a student going against his teacher
Thats what a real teacher does. A real teacher gets a feeling of deep accomplishment when a student exceeds his or her teaching. Youre just not caught up with reality. I imagine that your experience with teaching has been reading posts by me and several others whove taught as a profession. You are totally unarmed when it comes to what is or is not the goal or practice of teaching.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 10:43 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
There you go again, quoting one of our founding farters. Do you remember what WJ Bryant spoke of in his inauguration speech? Ill bet you have no fuckin idea. Im calling you a moron because you dont know what president Bryan had to say.


On the contrary I know quite a bit about WJB. I daresay more than the average American. And you have ignored my pointed warning. Whatever he said anywhere, and I've read a fair bit of what he did say, assuming the text has integrity, which I do, has nothing to do with the remark of his that I quoted. You could discredit him for saying 2+2=4 on your argument.

Quote:
Id rather see a society wherein all the positions of whether to believe or not believe are treated with equal respect and not, as is the present situation in US, where some minority-view religionists are attempting to make their beliefs become law .


They don't see it that way. They see it as a minority, atheists, attempting to supplant a settled order with scientific methodology applied to human beings based on how wonderful scientific methodology is when applied to inanimate matter. And that most of the 90% non-atheists don't understand the arguments fully and it is their duty to represent them.

Quote:
A real teacher gets a feeling of deep accomplishment when a student exceeds his or her teaching.


Of course. But it's your usual trick. Comparing unlike things. A teacher having his or her fondest and cherished beliefs rubbished is on another level than surpassing the teacher in some expertise.

Quote:
Thats what a real teacher does. A real teacher gets a feeling of deep accomplishment when a student exceeds his or her teaching. Youre just not caught up with reality. I imagine that your experience with teaching has been reading posts by me and several others whove taught as a profession. You are totally unarmed when it comes to what is or is not the goal or practice of teaching.


You have nothing to teach me about teaching. You can't even respond to the point of my last post which is no more than a slight fluffing up of what I've been saying all along. You're in it for personal reasons and I'm not.

You have, once again, ducked the question --""do you wish to see society with no religion? with an enthusistic, open armed, joy?" Your answer forgets the collective aspect of the word religion. It comes from the Latin meaning to bind. To unify. Your Pagan solution is no religion at all. It was tried and it failed despite being so powerful that failure was never thought about just as we can't imagine us failing. They had 35,000 gods I read somewhere.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 11:09 am
@spendius,
I shall yield to your superior knowledge about President Bryan. I was never a big fan of his administration. Why did you choose him as your mascot?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 11:47 am
@farmerman,
I didn't choose him. I'm reading Hofstadter's The American Political Tradition. The statement caught my eye as relevant to what we are doing. That's all. I'm a rural person and like him I see the moneyed interest as the enemy although I recognise the need for them. They do go too far at times in milking the working interest. As does the working interest if it gets too powerful. The 2004 election divided into two camps. One was divided into two by the other. Mr Bush won a central, integrated and uninterrupted land mass with a sea coast. I nearly said "unsullied" but that's too normative.

We have the same thing here to a certain extent.

It wouldn't matter to me who said that statement. It's true except possibly for the most ascetic of intellectuals and I reckon I could find a subjective core in most of them. And its truth is unaffected by who said it.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 05:35 am
@farmerman,
I don't know why I said "President Bryan". He was never president. He stood for the office and was defeated. More than once. He was Secretary of State for a time under President Wilson.

He was a prohibitionist so that makes him a nutcase in my opinion.

But that thing I quoted is true and the post I built on it you have failed to answer.

If all sides can find plausible reasons to justify their convictions the question is never solved by continually parading them. I was in your camp for a long time. I learned the error of my ways.

I wasn't converted to belief. I simply recognised the necessity for it to prevent science taking everything over which I believe would be a disaster.

Cultures do not operate on the basis of the anti-IDers arguments no matter how plausible they are. Cultures are too complex for simple solutions.

If push comes to shove I think Christians will dump public schools. You might be able to enforce school attendance on individual cases but you have no answer to organised mass rejection. The pulpit is not powerless.

You need to change people's "hearts". Judge's decisions and votes are neither here nor there without you doing that. If you don't change people's hearts you will end up discrediting judges and votes in assemblies.

Sell us your programme. Knocking the other side is a waste of time.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 04/19/2025 at 02:59:53