61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2017 03:00 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Leadfoot Quote:
"If you rely on obscure legal court decisions (like K. vs Dover) to form your position it just shows you don't understand the argument. "

If you call the third Federal District " Obscure",
YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT. Teaching ID was exactly where that school district went , with the consent of the goverened.

It is obscure to the general reader, and I'm not all that familiar with the details either. I don't really give a **** because Ad Hom arguments are lame.

The argument I referred to is the one in the OP. A ******* court decision (or any other matter of case law) has nothing to do with that and if you make your decision about it based on legal decisions, I stand on my statement that you don't know enough to understand the argument about Evolution or how it is taught.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2017 04:30 pm
@Leadfoot,
I love the way you run to ad homs as an excuse for your own ignorance.

Your arguments began as combative and short on information. Not much has changed in the ensuing 2 years since Ive talked with you.
You started out coming fairly hard on science, when it was explained to you in a rather avuncular manner (even though you are senior to me). Ive had 1st year "elective" students come up with the same arguments that you qnd gunga try out but they too display their own lightness of evidence.
If you believe one way, fine. Just dont try to poke outside your circle as if itd be obvious to other folks who maintain different worldviews,(those more based upon facts and evidence rather than snippets of websites and little else)
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2017 04:36 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
if you make your decision about it based on legal decisions, I stand on my statement that you don't know enough to understand the argument about Evolution
And if you understood quite a bit more, youd have known that the court DECISION was based upon fqacts and evidence, not the other way around.
In Dover, the head scientist Bob Behe, argued that ASTROLOGY is a science, and hes a molecular biologist (now a boqrd member of the Discovery Intitute)



Actully Im getting really bummed out qnd tired at picking on Discovery, they are so much an easy tqrget nd everyone else of their stripe sounds more like you. Dicovery Intitute hqtes these one mqn blogs about ID tht get biology/geology/physics all mulled together making up a layer of mud
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2017 05:28 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I love the way you run to ad homs as an excuse for your own ignorance.


I love the way you can't see your very own stunning hypocrisy, farmerman.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2017 06:08 pm
You're wasting you time, FM. The other day, I pointed out that a magazine that he had cited is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Discovery (ahem) Institute, and he claimed that was an "ad hom" [sic]. Of course, i was just referring to the old and cogent dictum to consider the source. Leady doesn't know what argumentum ad hominem means, obviously, and like so many around here, rather than address objections to their narrative, they just go on the attack.

Your mileage may vary, but I'd say you're wasting your time.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2017 06:27 pm
@Setanta,
This says is best.
Quote:
Discovery Institute is the advocacy of the pseudo-scientific principle of intelligent design (ID)


Some people's religious belief will blindly override this fact.
ossobucotemp
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2017 06:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Made me laugh. Just yesterday I was trying to remember what ID meant and even looked it up and could not find it; must have gotten lost in the list of personal identity items. I had managed to forget the acronym is for intelligent design - the name is a twist to me.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2017 06:51 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
rather than address objections to their narrative, they just go on the attack.


That is exactly what farmerman does, and yet here you are offering him advice at how to counter his very actions with another. Isn't there some hypocrisy in this?
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2017 06:53 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Some people's religious belief will blindly override this fact.


That hardly only applies to religion, as you well know, CI.

Again, the hypocrisy.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2017 06:57 pm
@farmerman,
From Wikipedia:
Quote:
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]


Thank you farmer, CI and set for the classic examples.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2018 12:01 pm
Here we go again. The same tired arguments being used to attempt to get their favorite superstition into our public school system.

Quote:
Arizona's schools chief seeks limits on teaching evolution, Big Bang theory

By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services May 22, 2018

The state’s top school official is trying to downplay — and in some cases remove entirely — references to evolution in the science standards of what students are supposed to be taught in Arizona high schools.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas is proposing to eliminate requirements that students be able to evaluate how inherited traits in a population can lead to evolution. Instead, she would replace the word “evolution” with “biological diversity.”

Elsewhere, Douglas seeks to repeal language that students develop the understanding of how “adaptations contribute to the process of biological evolution.” Instead, that verbiage would read “how traits within populations change over time.”

And a reference to the “mechanism of biological evolution” would be supplanted with “change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations.”

The word “evolution” would remain in some other places, though it would specifically be referred to as a theory.

But it isn’t just the idea of evolution that’s on Douglas’ hit list.

The standards crafted by a committee previously said students should be able to analyze and interpret “supporting evidence for the Big Bang theory and the scale of the universe.” That verbiage is gone, replaced with the more generic “theories related to the scale and expansion of the universe.”

But Douglas told Capitol Media Services this isn’t her attempt to replace the teaching of evolution with “intelligent design.” That essentially is a theory that life is too complex to have evolved at random and must be the product of some specific design, presumably by a higher power.

“We have absolutely nothing in these standards in reference to intelligent design,” she said.

The changes have drawn particular concern after KPNX-TV in Phoenix unearthed an audio recording of Douglas from last November where she was speaking at an event for Republican candidates.

“Should the theory of intelligent design be taught along with the theory of evolution?” she said in response to a question. “Absolutely,” Douglas said.

Douglas said Monday she was simply giving her personal beliefs on the issue. And she called reports that she is trying to put intelligent design into the curriculum “fake news.”

But in those November comments, the school superintendent did not separate her own beliefs from those of what she thinks should be taught in public schools.

“I had a discussion with my staff because we’re currently working on science standards, to make sure this issue was addressed in the standards we’re working on,” Douglas said at the time.

Douglas stressed Monday that the word “evolution” does remain in the standards, at least in several places.

“But we need to look at it from all sides,” she said.

“The point of education is really to be seekers of the truth, whatever the truth may be,” Douglas said. “And that’s what all standards should work toward.”

She acknowledged that the wording changes she wants may open the door to teachers providing students with alternate theories of how life on Earth got to where it is.

“Evolution is a theory in many ways,” Douglas said. “That’s what our children should understand.”

She said there are parts of evolution that are proven science, other elements are “very theoretical.”

“And if we’re going to educate our children instead of just indoctrinate them to one way of thinking, we have to be able to allow them to explore all types of areas,” she said.

So does Douglas believe there’s any scientific basis behind intelligent design?

“Maybe there will be someday,” she responded.

“Once upon a time people said the Earth was flat and it couldn’t possibly be round,” Douglas said. “I don’t know.”

Tory Roberg, lobbyist for the Secular Coalition for Arizona, said her concerns are not assuaged by the fact that Douglas is not proposing to add intelligent design to the standards. She said Douglas clearly realizes she can’t do that, citing federal court rulings that have slapped down schools that have attempted to require the teaching of intelligent design as an unconstitutional effort to put a religious belief into a classroom.

Still, Roberg, who has children in the Washington Elementary School District, said what Douglas is proposing is still wrong.

“It’s a disservice to our kids, a disservice to our teachers,” she said.

But author Ed Reitz had a different take on it when he spoke at a hearing last month.

“The teaching of evolution is something that concerns me because it’s a theory and it’s not science,” he said.

Reitz said his new book, “America’s Last Chance: Where Hope Lives,” with a picture of a boy on the cover praying next to a cross and U.S. flag, devotes an entire chapter to the issue of evolution and humans descending from previously existing vertebrates.

“In the first place, it is illogical,” Reitz testified. “When we observe nature, our natural instincts tell us there was design and planning somewhere.”

And Reitz said if schools would teach creationism, there would not be the need for vouchers that let parents use taxpayer dollars to send their children to private and parochial schools which do not have to follow the standards for teaching science that govern public schools.

“We want creation taught in schools and God brought back in,” he said.

The proposed changes drew opposition from Joe Thomas, president of the Arizona Education Association.

“We support the teaching of the scientific theory of evolution in the schools,” he said.

“Scientific standards should be based on scientific research and nothing else.”

And Thomas said this is more than a question of standards.

“It risks Arizona students falling behind the rest of the nation and world if we start watering down our education standards,” he said.

Thomas also said he was skeptical about Douglas’ claim that there are other valid theories that should be taught in schools.

“If there are other theories that exist, the science that has escaped the science community, the superintendent should bring those to the forefront,” he said.

Any changes to the science standards ultimately have to be approved by the Arizona State Board of Education.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2018 01:09 pm
@mesquite,
Quote:
The word “evolution” would remain in some other places, though it would specifically be referred to as a theory.

Yes, it's a theory with evidence unlike ID which can't produce evidence. How can something based on religious' faith be scientific? It's not. It's hogwash! Why do they continue to redefine theory as if redefining ID will be acceptable? First prove the "intelligence" behind ID. Describe it.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2018 02:59 pm
@mesquite,
clever. She wont add Intelligent Design (right away), she must first displace evolution with some smack phrases (Many of which sorta mean the same thing an Id love to argue with her that(changes in genetic composition of populations over time) actually means to her bunch.
Arizona isnt a buncha hillwilliams bt even they can have their dumass politicians who wish to upplant science with religion.
She's doing it in th correct manner, NCSE had a workshop that studied the "best ways to supplant evolutionary sciences with the belief pf ID", and SLOW and GRADUAL was what came up all the time.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2018 05:31 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
SLOW and GRADUAL was what came up all the time.

It's actually SLOW and NEVER. Time for knowledge to spread is decreasing at a rapid rate. http://www.industrytap.com/knowledge-doubling-every-12-months-soon-to-be-every-12-hours/3950
Look at the increasing rate of internet use around the world.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2018 10:09 pm
@farmerman,
Can you legally teach intelligent design as an alternative hypothesis without discussing who the designer is?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 May, 2018 04:42 am
@brianjakub,
I would put it more as teaching the problems in the theory of evolution. If you don’t do that, you are not teaching science. And if you teach that there are no problems, you are simply lying to the students.

I do not advocate teaching ID in public school. And neither does the Discovery Institute.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 May, 2018 05:19 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
And neither does the Discovery Institute
So the initiation and the sponsorship of the Dover case was not by the DI. Notify the media.

HS biology, at best, teach the evolution units within a week. (They teach the basic math, like Hardy Weinberg. AP bio allows the kids to reach as far as they wih, including the areas where Darwin fucked up and what the limitations to the theory are.
You aint bringing up anything new , nor have you disclosed anything .


One thing bio teaches is the value and strength of evidence, not fact-free assertion
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 May, 2018 05:24 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
Can you legally teach intelligent design as an alternative hypothesis without discussing who the designer is?
Most Evangelical parochial schools do. The very title Intelligent Design, implies an entity WHO is the Designer.

Until all you guys come about and actually say what this "design" is accomplished by what kind of intervention and have some evidenced hypotheses that begin to become theory"hood", youve really got nothing to offer.Right now Youve got a series of very focused critiques based on a denial of how evolution or even molecular chemistry works.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 May, 2018 07:58 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
I would put it more as teaching the problems in the theory of evolution

When you say "problems in the theory", are you talking about as yet undiscovered details to the theory, or are you talking about conflicts with the evidence? Because there are no conflicts with the evidence, and if you think there are, you should give us some examples because we would love to explore those in more detail.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 May, 2018 11:07 am
@rosborne979,
You do know you are asking for the impossible. Lf cannot provide any evidence. (period)
Leadfoot should visit the Galapagos Islands where Charles Darwin did his research on evolution. They have established a Charles Darwin Research Center/Station that continues to provide evidence for evolution.
https://www.ecoventura.com/what-is-the-charles-darwin-research-station/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 02:41:06