Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@tenderfoot,

I don't think spendi bewilders as much as his writing can be confused and written in fragments. That doesn't confuse me, but it does make me laugh.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

He tries but isent smart enough to realize most thinking people on this site have his number.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

IS it natural or god driven? I really dont have any answers to that .

I'm glad you can be counted upon to be honest FM.

FM wrote:

If you think about it a little clearly you will see that science, has no place in its investigations in which to insert a series of questions like"Hmm, I wonder whether a god did this?", and even if it could, why would it?

Despite the implied insult this is a good point and one with which I largely agree. Scientists engaging in science are not required to speak to the origins of evolution, only the mechnics and the results, however I would like to think that even scientists wonder.They are not machines afterall.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

This is a cheap argument and you should realize it.

Anyone with even a half-way decent knowledge of history and human nature knows that religious tenets cannot be defined by the actions of their priests.

And yes, virtually all religions come down to asserting don't do what the priest is doing, do what I say. Priests do not hold a special position by virtue of the teachings of their religion, they do so either by virtue of the way in which they personify the teachings or by a concerted effort of the priesthoods of all religions to enjoy an exalted place in society.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Well if it wasn't spendi who baffled you, who was it?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

however I would like to think that even scientists wonder.They are not machines afterall.

I cant speak for all scientists but I havent worried about it or "wondered about it" for many decades. Why are not atheists afforded the same opportunities to not speculate about things without being cast as "Machines"?
bzzzt (clink() bzzt

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Scientists engaging in science are not required to speak to the origins of evolution, only the mechnics

There are several other times during my day during which I dont speculate about things like gods, Easter Bunnies, gryffons, and jackalopes

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Anyone with even a half-way decent knowledge of history and human nature knows that religious tenets cannot be defined by the actions of their priests.

followed by a space within which should have been inserted the caveat that "of course all the rules held over the laity are first vocalized by priesthoods"

Quote:

they do so either by virtue of the way in which they personify the(ir) teachings or by a concerted effort of the priesthoods of all religions to enjoy an exalted place in society.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

Quote:

He tries but isent smart enough to realize most thinking people on this site have his number.

Wasted words. Mean nothing. The assertion could be made by anybody about anybody.

Are you suggesting there are unthinking A2Kers? And that only most of the thinkers have my number.

Are you defining "thinking" to exclude any thinking not exactly like your own?

What's my number then? For the benefit of the non-thinkers and the rest of the thinkers.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Why are not atheists afforded the same opportunities to not speculate about things without being cast as "Machines"?

They are. So also everybody else. We are not concerned with what any individual does or does no speculate about. We are concerned with what people promote in the public domain and the social consequences of it.

That you promote atheism in the public domain involves you, necessarily, in offering an explanation of the results if your promotion is successful. If you hide behind saying that your promotion won't be successful you are admitting being a useless promoter. Or claiming that those who reject your view are stupid.

The fact that you refuse to discuss the social consequences of institutionalised atheism renders your promotion of it irresponsible. You have been challenged to do so from the beginning of this thread and have ducked and dived on the matter all through its existence. It's on Ignore. Which is as unscientific as unscientific gets.

You need to dispute Kant's Categorical Imperative before you promote an agenda even you would reject the consequences of unless you envisage an influential position for yourself in a North Korean type of government as Minister for Reorientation or one of his or her hatchet men.

3 Replies

@spendius,

If that post baffles anybody it means that RABEL is a silly moo-cow.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

That you promote atheism in the public domain involves you

I have never "PRomotd" atheism. I will answer a question, usually a challenge as to how my life is "meaningless". Upon answering, the lague of the religious usually begin harangues and miscastings of us (and, as a group, most of us are non threatening).
Lately, Ive even tried to stay away from the melange of the religious posts that abound herein. When the religious, begin their discourses of "why dont I speculate about a god in charge", my only response if "WTF dude" . To me, its as important a life choice as is my preference for maple glazed donuts over choco;ate chip cookies.
Newsflash spnds, Its only meaningful to you so why not just tuck it up under your clerical collar and try to act like what you profess.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

You need to dispute Kant's Categorical Imperative before you promote an agenda even you would reject the consequences of unless you envisage an influential position for yourself in a North Korean type of government as Minister for Reorientation or one of his or her hatchet men

I say this with all the love I can muster,
"You are fucked in the head spendi"

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

You need to dispute Kant's Categorical Imperative before you promote an agenda even you would reject the consequences of unless you envisage an influential position for yourself in a North Korean type of government as Minister for Reorientation or one of his or her hatchet men

I say this with all the love I can muster,
"You are fucked in the head spendi"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

BACK TOTHE ORIGINAL TOPIC OF THIS NTIRE THREAD
As we can easily see from the comments, the biggest challenge to teaching the science behind evolution, is to make sure that the religious keep out of the science. Among the several commentors , they all seem to miss the point that RELIGION has no given place in cientific investigations. No matter how much you object or try to assign how "Christianity underlies science" (that one is always worth a laugh), or how much of science is a sure road to perdition, SCIENCE must be free of all that crap.

Fortunately, most all of you who post as if religion DOES have a place, MY VOTE OUTWEIGHS YOURS, for, as far as I can see, Im the only one whose ******* up your childrens minds with my atheistic sermons of a godless natural selection.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I have never "PRomotd" atheism.

You do it all the time. It's what you're here for.

Quote:

I will answer a question, usually a challenge as to how my life is "meaningless".

I have never said your life is meaningless. And you are replying to me. You have failed to answer any of the many significant questions I have asked.

Do you want to abolish religion? Do you think there are no social consequences to institutionalised atheism?

You said that you can't speak for all scientists (too true) and here you are expecting me to respond to you being harangued and miscast by "the religious".

As individuals you are not threatening but as a group you certainly are to our way of life.

I have not noticed any melange of religious posts herein. Quite the opposite.

I don't discourse about why you don't speculate about a god in charge. I'm not so daft.

Quote:

To me, its as important a life choice as is my preference for maple glazed donuts over choco;ate chip cookies.

You have said some pretty silly things in your time but that one is "up there".

Your very presence after all this time on here gives the lie to it. And you harangued a private religious meeting which you wouldn't have done had it been a meeting discussing the merits of maple glazed donuts over choco;ate chip cookies.

How you are allowed to have influence in the Pa educational system beggars belief.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

"You are fucked in the head spendi"

Stuck for words again eh?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

As we can easily see from the comments, the biggest challenge to teaching the science behind evolution, is to make sure that the religious keep out of the science.

There is no "science" behind evolution. It's just an inventory of life forms with some minor descriptions of outer surfaces and a few simple teleologies about how they got that way which avoid any attempts at describing the mechanisms by which they did so.

If you keep the religious out of science then the scientific profession and its offshoots needs to be recruited from the 10% of atheists.

Quote:

Among the several commentors , they all seem to miss the point that RELIGION has no given place in cientific investigations.

Back to absent "commentators" who "seem" to miss the point (are stupid). If Religion, by which I mean the Christian religion, has no place in science then science is free to experiment unchecked by any moral considerations.

Quote:

No matter how much you object or try to assign how "Christianity underlies science" (that one is always worth a laugh), or how much of science is a sure road to perdition, SCIENCE must be free of all that crap.

But it does and laughing at the idea is not an argument against it. Infants have science the way you use the word. They do not have the mathematics of the dynamics of infinite space. y=(f)x.

And that body of knowledge, which is beyond the reach of all but a few, originated and was developed under a Christian psychology. No other culture has that nor ever could have had.

It is you who wants to dumb us down to your level.

Science, unsupervised by Christian morality, IS a sure road to perdition. Data is irresponsible.

YOUR VOTE DOES NOT OUTWEIGH everybody's. Nowhere near, despite you having every tempting argument on your side.

And now you're talking of your " atheistic sermons of a godless natural selection" only a short while after claiming not to be promoting atheism.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

How did copulation gradually evolve over millions of years? Do your evolutionary principles explain life forms which do not use copulation to reproduce?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Because it is machine-like not to wonder

0 Replies

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know