Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@izzythepush,

The Olde Cheshire Cheese has great history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_Olde_Cheshire_Cheese

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

It is funny how they always use the constitution to stop critical thinking.

How is the Constitution being used to stop critical thinking?

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

They use it to stop biblical thinking.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Actually its quite the other way around. It took over 15o years before the several states discovered that the first Amendmentof the Bill of Rights represented both the freedom OF and FROM religion in everything.
Anyone who believes that the religious deniers of evolution are engaged in "critical thinking" is a fool.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

We've got historic pubs too. This one is a scene in HenryV.

https://1pumplane.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/red-lion-southampton.jpg

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Parents should decide how to educate their children through local school boards. If they meet the minimum requirements set by the state and want to teach more, even if it's not mainstream they should be able to. Science might not be local, but it is decided by consensus of a fairly small idealogically homogeneous group through scientific journals. Using the constitution to limit education, is limiting freedom of discourse. Let the evolutionist fanatics opt out of intelligent design, like they let religious nuts opt out of sex ed, and the jehova witnesses out of almost anything but taxes.

1 Reply

The problem which arises is that holy rollers want creationism and so-called intelligent design taught as science, which they clearly are not. Furthermore, the constitution prohibits the establishment of religion, which means you cannot use institutions of the state to promote a religious point of view. If holy rollers want their children to be brainwashed, let them do it at home, or spend the money to send their little perishers to private schools.

Talking about "evolutionist fanatics" just displays your bigotry.

0 Replies

The alleged "fairly small" group numbers three and a half million, ore more than ten million, depending upon how one counts them.

Quote:

Estimates of the size of the science and engineering (S&E) workforce can vary significantly depending on how one chooses to classify a scientist or engineer. For example, if only those persons with a bachelor's degree or higher who are employed in an S&E occupation are considered to be part of the S&E workforce, there were approximately 3.5 million scientists and engineers working in the United States in 1999. On the other hand, if any employed individual with a science or engineering degree is counted as part of the S&E workforce, then there were more than 10 million scientists and engineers working in the U.S. in 1999.

Source, which includes more detailed information on those working in science and engineering, as well as those with S/E degrees without regard to where they are employed.

The snide remark about "ideologically homogeneous" is just more evidence of this member's bigotry, and inability to see science as anything other than a political position--one which threatens holy roller values.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I don't think all scientists and engineers get to peer review. How many vote on publication or not. If they mostly agree doesn't that make them homogenius? You aren't being homophobic are you?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

homogenius?

Hehehehehehehehehehe . . .

Quote:

You aren't being homophobic are you?

Aaa-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

You can't beat this place for free entertainment.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

if he was a lazy farmer hed be a Hoe mow phobe

1 Reply

But certainly never a homo genius.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

You cracked the code on that one! LOL

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

The only thing that matters is the First Amendment and the separation of church and state. The only groups pushing for "alternate" ideas are religious groups and their "alternate" ideas are all deceptively packaged religion. If you think any of what these groups are pushing is about expanding scientific discussion, then you are deluding yourself.

The Constitution isn't limiting education or freedom of discussion, it's protecting "We The People" from religious incursion into government and visa versa. And that principle, simply put, is the single most valuable doctrine any government has ever offered to its people and possibly to humanity itself. It's a principle and a right that must be protected at all cost.

3 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

it's protecting "We The People" from religious incursion into government and visa versa.

And not doing a very good job at the state level.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

Quote:
it's protecting "We The People" from religious incursion into government and visa versa.

And not doing a very good job at the state level.

Do you have an example?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Telling people they cant have an abortion no matter what is wrong with them.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

The only thing that matters is the First Amendment and the separation of church and state. The only groups pushing for "alternate" ideas are religious groups and their "alternate" ideas are all deceptively packaged religion. If you think any of what these groups are pushing is about expanding scientific discussion, then you are deluding yourself.

Do you think there is a way to question evolution, or introduce the possibility of a designer without being religious? What if the universe has an intelligence guiding evolution through the complex macro-evolution that doesn't have any morals, except to survive and evolve to something better? Please don't accuse me of pushing ID, this is just a question.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Do you think there is a way to question evolution, or introduce the possibility of a designer without being religious?

Sure there is. You can show us your science supporting that viewpoint.

The problem is you have no science. There is no evidence of a designer that you can show us that can be tested scientifically.

1 Reply

@parados,

I can't test scientifically who designed the pyramids. There are no engineering plans, no evidence of the equipment they used, and we can't replicate it today, but they teach it was men like it is a fact. I think they are making a fair assumption but, it was a long time ago, it could have been anyone or anything. If men could replicate it today, we wouldn't have to assume.

3 Replies

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know