61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2012 08:32 am
@parados,
Quote:
fm got the metaphor wrong.

Well, spendi is a moving target, thats fer sure.

Thats all I have to say abot that.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2012 10:16 am
@parados,
Quote:
You get off on your long diatribes that generally disgust the rest of us.


They are intended to disgust the "rest of us". It is disgusting using Science to justify all these sordid transactions. The Christian moral codes are not just plucked out of thin air to annoy everybody. They are pragmatic social codes for the best ordering of society and the moral aspects are tacked on to make them stick.

I have cited 5 famous philosophers in the last 24 hours and not a peep has been offered to either recognise any of them or rebut what they have offered. One of them, Kuhn, is often referred to by one of A2K's leading atheists. (fresco). 6, sorry. I forgot de Sade. A man with the courage of his convictions.

I don't expect any of you anti-IDers to come clean. Your science is pathetic.

How do you square the first principle of science, a body of shared knowledge seeking truth disinterestedly, with atomic secrets? The theologians have no problem with that because a body of shared knowledge seeking truth disinterestedly is a long way second in the hierarchy of knowledge to good order and managed progress.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2012 08:21 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Well, spendi is a moving target, thats fer sure.

Thats all I have to say abot that.


What's new about that fm? I've been saying for years that sitting ducks are more your line of work.

Are you not even going to try answering the instrumentalist argument? Whatever conclusions are derived from unknowables have equal validity and the only difference is the application of them. The social consequences which you have refused to apply yourself to from the beginning.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 07:09 am
TENNESSEE UPDATE
Quote:
House Completes Action on ‘Question Evolution’ Bill
(By Joe White, WPLN News, March 26, 2012)

A bill to allow more questioning of scientific theories in the name of “critical thinking” got the final vote of approval from the state House of Representatives last night.

Proponents say the bill is intended to keep teachers from being disciplined if they allow discussion on scientific controversies in their classrooms.

The House approved language added by the Senate. In a preamble, the bill now lists subjects that the General Assembly feels are up for disputation: “biological evolution, the chemical origin of life, global warming and human cloning.”

Opponents say the bill follows the strategy of creationists and others who want to cast doubt on the theory of evolution. Scientists say there is not scientific dispute over the theory – just political opposition.

But the sponsors say science classes will still have to stick to the curriculum approved by the state Board of Education.

While some teachers and scientists opposed the bill, the state Department of Education steered clear of taking a position on it.

The bill, HB 368 Dunn/SB 893 Watson, was amended in the Senate to add a long preamble.

The action of the House means both chambers of the General Assembly have passed the same language, and the bill goes to the governor for his signature.

Even as the bill was being passed, a guest lecturer at Middle Tennessee State University was advising against the action. From the MTSU news release:
“Physical anthropologist and evolution expert Dr. Eugenie C. Scott emphatically believes the Tennessee State legislature should drop bills regarding the allowing of religious and politically motivated statements in public middle- and high-school classrooms. And because politics is involved, Scott looks for the legislature to pass them. “These bills are a bad idea pedagogically. They’re a bad idea legally,” says Scott, who has been in Murfreesboro and at MTSU today, awaiting tonight’s Scholars Week keynote address titled ‘Controversy over the Teaching of Evolution.’ “The best thing would be for these bills to be withdrawn and forgotten about. And it looks like they are going to pass.”

In her comments, Scott is referencing Tennessee HB0368 and SB0893 that, as introduced, “protects a teacher from discipline for teaching scientific subjects in an objective manner.”
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 08:13 am
@wandeljw,
This bill could cut both ways if we think about it. The perview of "critical thinking without academic repurcussions" has a freeing sense about it. If the Bill would be 100% fair, then I as a Tennessee techer could open my lectures with
"Well kiddies, There is no scientific doubt about the process of evolution, however the schoolboard and the law require me to preach about something called "Creationsim" and "Intelligent Design" which have no scientific basis as far as we know, no evidence to support them and their only references are in the Christian Bible."
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 08:22 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

This bill could cut both ways if we think about it. The perview of "critical thinking without academic repurcussions" has a freeing sense about it. If the Bill would be 100% fair, then I as a Tennessee techer could open my lectures with
"Well kiddies, There is no scientific doubt about the process of evolution, however the schoolboard and the law require me to preach about something called "Creationsim" and "Intelligent Design" which have no scientific basis as far as we know, no evidence to support them and their only references are in the Christian Bible."
That may be true, I'm not sure. But I'm thinking that realistically there probably aren't a whole lot of teachers "down south" who actually see things that way.

I think the policies of law and government are important, but unfortunately, I also suspect that the reality on the ground (in classrooms) is that teachers probably leak their personal views into the classroom regardless of what the law tells them to do.

I bet there is fairly intense social pressure in all of these schools to "leak" the Christian dogma at every opportunity. I would love to take a random sampling of secret classroom videos to see what's really going on in all these schools.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 08:39 am
@rosborne979,
ROAD TRIP!! I see a neat documentary with that thesis.

You must recall though that there was only one teacher of biology at DOVER who would agree with the school boards unwavering directive. All the others (I believe it was 5 ) were loudly opposed to the ID sermon in bio and natural science classes.
I think teachers are some of the best allies. ALthough, of course, Im not certain of those in the Buckle of the Belt country
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 03:24 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
All the others (I believe it was 5 ) were loudly opposed to the ID sermon in bio and natural science classes.


But is biology a science? Or, like chemistry and geology, merely description. All three are derivatives of physics as a glance at Prof Aidsey's The Physiology of Excitable Cells makes quite clear. As also numerous other scholarly works on the matter.

Would describing the rules of NFL, say, and its appearances be an explanation of it?

Have teachers of these subjects, which are all reducible to physics, got a vested interest in talking up their subject as a real science when it is obvious from everything they say that physics is way beyond their mental capacities. By thus talking up their subjects they are claiming equality with physicists and gathering to their bosoms the cachet of physics.

Evolutionary "science" is merely a non-miraculous method of explaining the origin of the universe and particularly the origin of organisms. Which, of course, it not only does not do but it cannot do. It is no explanation of anything. It is a description.

It was bolstered by the Lamarkian ideology of "upward change", progress etc. A desire to turn a static Chain of Being into a continuously moving escalator. Hubris.

You're all just giving yourself chucks under the chin. There's not one iota of science in any of you. Science is miles too tough for any of you. You've been proving that for 8 years. Ad hominems galore and now Ignore. No science in sight.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 03:28 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
I would love to take a random sampling of secret classroom videos to see what's really going on in all these schools.


Which automatically grants permission of other to secretly video atheists teaching in schools.

Totalitarian in its entirety. The Big Cheese ros getting in between teacher and student. Wow!!
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 05:15 am
Quote:
Evolution Meets Education (Again)
(Christopher Brauchli, HuffingtonPost.com, March 29, 2012)

It's time for an update on the progress of evolution. Oklahoma and Tennessee are in a closely matched race to put a new law addressing this contentious issue on the books but who will win cannot be known at this time. Missouri is in third place. New Hampshire and Indiana hoped to be part of the race but their efforts were sidetracked so they're out of the running for 2012.

Oklahoma and Tennessee's legislators' most recent attacks on evolution started in each state's legislative session in 2011 and were carried forward into this year's sessions. House Bill 1551 that has passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives and is now before the Oklahoma Senate's Education Committee has the catchy name of the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act. (Bills that want creationism taught often include the word "scientific" in their titles to give added luster to their efforts.) Its sponsors are opposed letting teachers teach science exclusively as it is commonly accepted by those knowledgeable in the field. The bill says its purpose is to "create an environment within public ... schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions ... and respond appropriately to differences of opinion about controversial issues ... Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." One of the scientific theories proponents of the bill think should be taught is "creationism."

"Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education" commented on the proposed legislation saying: "Promoting the notion that there is some scientific controversy [about evolution] is just plain dishonest. ..." With respect to the bill's reference to the "weaknesses" of evolution the scientific group describes them as "phony fabrications, invented and promoted by people who don't like evolution." Their comments were seconded by Douglas Mock, a professor in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma who said: "Wrapped in the deceptive language of promoting critical thinking, they aim to get the nose of a malodorous camel (pseudoscience) inside the tent of science ... The low scientific literacy of our citizens is a serious concern that's not helped by adding fake controversies."

Although it cannot be said with certainty that the bill will get through the senate and be signed by the governor, the odds would seem to be in its favor. The Oklahoma legislature was one of the first states in the country to refer to voters for approval a resolution known as "Save Our State." It was passed by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters and it forbids Oklahoma courts "from considering or using Sharia law." (A temporary injunction was issued against its enforcement within a few days of its approval by voters and on January 11, 2012 the injunction was made permanent by the United States Court of Appeals in Denver.) If Oklahomans can take a stand against Sharia, which had never been used in its courts, it seems like a good bet its Senate and governor will have no trouble taking a stand against evolution that its action suggest has little effect in Oklahoma.

On March 19th, four days after the Oklahoma House approved HB 1551 and sent it off to the Oklahoma Senate, the Tennessee Senate passed Senate Bill 893 that is with one minor exception, a virtual carbon copy of the Oklahoma statute. The Tennessee legislation was attacked by the Tennessee Science Teachers Association as being "unnecessary, anti-scientific , and very likely unconstitutional." Having passed the Tennessee House it is now before the Republican controlled Senate where its approval seems assured. Tennessee's governor has not indicated whether or not he will sign the bill. He told The Tennessean that he intended to discuss the legislation with the Tennessee Board of Education before deciding whether or not to sign the bill. As he explained to the newspaper: "That's why we have a state board of education." There are no reports on whether the Oklahoma governor feels the need to consult with any professional or if he can rely on the proven good sense of the legislators.

Missouri is the other state that is currently contemplating enhancement of its curriculum by introducing alternative theories about how it all happened. Rick Brattin, a new member of the Missouri House has introduced House Bill 1227. The Bill would require "intelligent design" to be taught in the schools. Explaining the reason for this legislation, Mr. Brattin told the Kansas City Star that " the jury is sill out on evolution." (He did not say to which jury he was referring.) He expressed dissatisfaction that "our schools only teach that we emerged from primordial ooze. I think students should get both sides of the issue and get to come to their own conclusions." The bill has been referred to the committee on Elementary and Secondary Education.

Given the history of these kinds of bills and the climate of the states in which they're being considered, it is not unlikely that all three bills will become law. When they emerge they will be covered with some kind of ooze. Probably not primordial, since everyone knows there's no such thing.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 09:07 am
@wandeljw,
Quote:
"Promoting the notion that there is some scientific controversy [about evolution] is just plain dishonest. ..."


That's a lie.

Quote:
scientific group describes them as "phony fabrications, invented and promoted by people who don't like evolution."


That's a lie.

Quote:
"Wrapped in the deceptive language of promoting critical thinking, they aim to get the nose of a malodorous camel (pseudoscience) inside the tent of science ... The low scientific literacy of our citizens is a serious concern that's not helped by adding fake controversies."


That's a lie.

Quote:
"unnecessary, anti-scientific , and very likely unconstitutional."


That's a lie.

Quote:
When they emerge they will be covered with some kind of ooze.


That's a lie.

But what is worse is the sheer, instransigent, bigoted obstinacy which sets out right and wrong as if deciding how to organise an industrial chicken unit. And worse even than that is the dismal, narrow literary style so consistent with the totalitarian, ideological aim of reducing mental concepts to the bare functional minimum which must be thought necessary if we are all to become objects for the scientific profession and its coat-tail riding lickspittals and lackeys to whom the evolutionary principle of diversity is obviously anathema.

Quote:
Force should be right; or rather, right and wrong,
Between whose endless jar justice resides
Should lose their names, and so should justice too.
Then everything includes itself in power,
Power into will, will into appetite,
And appetite, a universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power,
Must make perforce a universal prey,
And at last eat up himself.


Shakespeare: Troilus and Cressida.

The lack of real education is the hallmark of these ravening wolves.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 09:12 am
@spendius,
That's a lie.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 09:26 am
@wandeljw,
I hadda peek to see what he's spouting about now. Hes always been a lying sack of **** who only wants attention. Hes a little boy with no understanding of anything analytical or scientific. ALthough he protests mightily, hes an ignoramus.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 01:34 pm
@farmerman,
There is scientific controversy about evolution. There are weaknesses in evolution theory. There is no deceptive language promoting critical thinking, there are no malodorous camels nor pseudoscience and science is not a tent. And the scientific literacy in the US is the highest ever known and this is not a fake controversy. And the debate is not unnecessary nor anti-scientific nor unconstitutional. And there will be no ooze.

Viewers can make up their own minds who is a lying sack of ****. And who wants attention. I'm not a little boy and I have a complete understanding of these matters. And I'm not an ignoramus. Nor am I protesting.

And you shouldn't be peeking. If you do you should answer the points rather than going off on a shrewish rant.

Surely you can justify attacking Christian morality without calling on the name of Science as your prop. Your assertions are without science or sense or value save as self justification.

Those people are elected. Get elected yourselves. There's a country to run and only a small number of voters trust you fuckers to do it.

That you think that your post constitutes an argument speaks volumes for your scientific sensibility. It's a trite Irish tinker's curse.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 01:37 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
There is scientific controversy about evolution. There are weaknesses in evolution theory.
Where and where?? and please dont give me that crap about Spengler or adies underwear, you are waaay too predictable and trite(besides being an airhead)

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 04:48 pm
@farmerman,
There's loads. Tree of life with the virus, the amoeba, the whale, the tiger, plankton, moss, teak trees, humans, etc etc in billions of different shapes and sizes with reproduction from splitting, from pollen and from sexual selection with nose rubbing, arse sniffing, steatopgyia, lingerie, arrangements, dipping the spear in the blood of the enemy, ages of consent.

What was before the Big Bang? Nothing.? No time, no space, no motion. Can the mind get nothing. How can the universe arrive out of nothing. You have seen how big what we are supposed to be able to see on photographic plates is. From nothing? It's counter intuitive. It defies common sense even if it did come from nothing and how do we deal with something that defies our common sense.

And there's art and philosophy. Explain them out of Darwin. Explain self consciousness. Knowledge of death. Explain Science out of Darwin. Is chlorophyll the cause of photosynthesis or the effect?

Materialism, Socialism and Darwinism are identical. What's the point of talking about these things if nothing is going to be done about them? Cocktail party games are for little boys. Without consequences your position is a vacuity.

Survival of the fittest and struggle for existence comes down to breeding and the Superman and to mankind as a stud farm which you, like Nietzsche, are too fastidious to contemplate. Shaw did. He was no chicken at the bedroom door. Eugenics.

If we do talk of these things, as I do, and you dare not, we must answer the questions of who shall breed and where and when.

Nietzsche couldn't. He was chicken, too romantic. Not up for exposing the poetic idea to nasty reality and the test of facts. That it all derives from Darwin, implies socialism and compulsion and the systematic breeding, which Darwin has seen in pigeon fanciers and farmers, and it is your bottom line agenda despite you being too devious to admit it. You want evolution in schools to set going a socialistic ordering of society and totalitarian control. You fancy yourself as an Inner Party member.

You know nothing.

What do you mean by crap about Spengler and lingerie? Your conclusions are once again in your premiss and you don't even seem to know it. You seem blissfully unaware that "crap" has won the argument for you without further ado. And you grant permission for others to say your arguments are crap so they can win too unless you are the authority on what is crap which I know you think you are like all silly little wannabee totalitarians do as with ci. ros and wande. Wankers United. UnAmerican to the core of your marrowbone jellies and completely incapable of doing grown up insults as well.

**** off!!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 05:03 pm
@farmerman,
And another thing Dickhead. It's silly to call me a moving target one day and predictable the next. It demonstrates your incoherence and I don't like debating with people who are incoherent because it's like stealing candy out of a baby's pram.

You have a line into the NCSE. Get one of their leading intellectuals on here will you. Prof Forrest for preference. I'm sick of two bit dummies who can't tell a personal hard on from a global entelechy.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 05:49 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
It's silly to call me a moving target one day and predictable the next
. Obviously you know nothing about orbitals, planetary orbits or even ranges in organisms. A manatee is a moving target but is confined within a predictable range. You move from one trite phrase to another, all within predictable dialogue. Your easily followed but your all over your home range like a loon. Obviously you dont think things out very clearly before you comment openly about them.
Why dont you write something like Joe Nation, edgarblythe, Jjorge or ENdymion. They produce products of worth. You just produce projectile vomitus.

Im sorry I peeked when wandel called you a iar, theres nothing worth seeing that youve brought up. ALl that fluff and attempted intellectual going -to-ground is merely your way of saying that you have no idea what the hell your saying.

Time for your daiy suds injections

edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 08:05 pm
Oh I say. Today this thread has been highly entertaining. Good show, wot?
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 09:40 pm
Could somebody please put Spendius on the Victoria's Secret catalog mailing list, so he can work his fixation on lingerie out with his trusty right hand (or left hand, should he happen to be sinistral).
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/11/2025 at 01:39:56