Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

You disagree b.c you don't understand the science, and are mostly into being a contrary old crank.

I'm afraid to say my dear that I do understand the science of evolution theory. That is why I'm against bringing it into schools. And cranks are those who are on the side of electorally insignificant minorities who think all their Christmases have come at once when their poll ratings go from 9% to 15% for the reason I offered in my previous post.

I see anybody who wants to bringing it into schools as having no idea whatsoever, if you will forgive the tautology which I only employ for emphasis, about the science or that they have a deep need to wreck the innocence of youth.

Quote:

My guess is you'd be persuaded if we could somehow manage to print the formula and proofs on the bottom of bottles and pint glasses....

And I see the puritan prohibitionist bursting out of that silly statement and I also am confident in guessing that you either can't afford to go out for a couple of pints (equivalent to a standard glass of wine) or have found that those who do go out for that to have the crack with their neighbours at the end of a long and weary day have found your company unacceptable or that your partner has henpecked you into preferring her having a new frock or that you have had medical problems with alcohol due to a lack of self control.

0 Replies

One pint of beer, not higher alcohol content ale, is equal to one large glass of wine.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

You think there'll be more if we stop telling children lies?

I am at a loss my dear of how I would dare to tell children the truth. I simply do not have the nerve for such a thing. They will learn it soon enough.

I can only think that you are not actually aware of the truth and that you just use the word as a linguistic trick to flatter yourself and those in your vicinity. It does make one sound very special to be a stickler for the truth.

Just try it sometime though kid. Not too far mind you.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

One pint of beer, not higher alcohol content ale, is equal to one large glass of wine.

Bollocks. I hope your evolution science is more rigorous that that. Have you been reading government guidelines?

I have drunk many a large glass of wine and many, many pints. There are women, seven stone weaklings, who come in my pub and drink two bottles of wine (12%) and it is still impossible to make out what they are talking about.

0 Replies

effemm gives the impression that an increase in the number of people rejecting Christianity is due to them having become "enlightened" whilst not allowing for them having some subjective reason probably associated with some sexual activity condemned by the churches.

He also welcomes the nationalisation of stem cell research without reference to private enterprise which has the capacity to pull the plug on it if it isn't turning a profit or showing a promise of doing so. Once SCR is government funded (taxpayers) no such check exists and the scientists involved can go on forever claiming it "might" do such and such or it "may possibly lead to" something else and have thus been granted a never ending line into taxpayer's pockets based on those sorts of vague promises. Private enterprise would fully fund SCR if it thought there was money in it. And, as far as I can tell, has not been banned from doing so.

The invention of the jet engine was carried out on a shoestring by a scientific entrepreneur in the teeth of opposition from government funded scientists. They said it wouldn't work.

He also wants to nationalise the religion of evolution for very similar reasons. Jobs for evolutionists. And, if practical considerations are taken into account, the removal of Christians from the educational system.

In the end family will be nationalised.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

The invention of the jet engine was carried out on a shoestring by a scientific entrepreneur in the teeth of opposition from government funded scientists. They said it wouldn't work.

Your lack of knowledge of history is on a parallel with your knowledge of science.

Several new options for treating macular degeneration (a common occurence among aged drunks), and corneal diseases have been in the experimental stage by researchers in Japan (Where embryonic stem cell rresearch is being pursued with greater govt backing than it had been in the US). Its similar in the UK. Im sure that several countries dont wish to have the US in the "hunt". Business is business.

0 Replies

Quote:

The extraordinary case of the Pennsylvania judges who were paid bribes by private prison operators for every child they sent to jail has astounded America and shamed its judiciary, just as the US Supreme Court is considering another possibly landmark case involving alleged judicial corruption.

Ciavarella and Michael Conahan, a fellow judge from Luzerne county in northeastern Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty last month to pocketing more than $2.6m (£1.8m) in kickbacks from the operators of two privately run juvenile detention centres.

From The Sunday Times.

0 Replies

UK UPDATE

Quote:

Hampshire schools given green light to debate creationism
(by Jenna Lyle, Christian Today, March 11, 2009)

New guidance for secondary schools in Hampshire gives teachers the green light to hold discussions in class on creationism and intelligent design alongside evolution.

The discussions form part of a joint syllabus for science and religious education and will be used for 11 to 14-year-olds, according to The Telegraph.

The decision was praised by academics and clergy who said it would encourage students to analyse the different viewpoints about the origins of man and the earth.

According to official government guidance, creationism should be taught in RE and not as part of science lessons, but it does allow discussion on the subject if pupils raise it during debates on evolution.

The new guidance comes from Hampshire Council's multi-faith advisory panel for RE and states, "The tensions between religion and science should not be denied but nor should we paint a black and white picture in this respect, it is more complex than that."

The guidance encourages teachers to talk about why so many people did not accept the theory of evolution by natural selection when it was first developed by Charles Darwin in the 19th century. It also asks students to think about if it is possible to believe both in evolution and a divine creator.

The guidance also says that religious ideas, such as the Roman Catholic view that man evolved but God created the soul and therefore made man in the image of God, should also be debated in RE and science lessons.

The council refuted any claims that it was promoting the teaching of creationism as a scientific theory.

Councillor Anna McNair Scott, chairman of the county's Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education, was quoted by The Telegraph as saying, "There is no suggestion in the report that creationism is a science, still less that it should be taught as one.

"The report is intended simply to advise schools about resources they can use to encourage reasoned enquiry and open discussion about creation and evolution, and suggests how the debate can be carried out across the curriculum areas of science and RE."

Teaching creationism or intelligent design in the classroom has caused divisions in the academic community.

In 2008 Professor Michael Reiss was forced to quit as director of education at the prestigious Royal Society, after fellow academics attacked his idea of talking about creationism in biology lessons.

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said, "There is a big difference between answering students' questions about creationism and actually introducing it into the lessons in the first place as part of the curriculum. If the teacher raises the topic, then it takes on an authority that it does not deserve."

Andy McIntosh, co-director of Truth in Science, said, "There should be an open and fair discussion about the issues and we should not be presenting pupils with only one view in a closed manner. It is certainly possible to look at the evidence and come up with a different conclusion to the evolutionary position. Indeed, many would see that the evidence fits perfectly well with a design position."

Informational note: "Truth in Science" is the UK equivalent of the Discovery Institute. It's purpose is to promote intelligent design.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Of coarse it is! Where does the discussion take them once they declare something was designed by god? ummmm....ahhh.....ummmm.....ahhhh....well, god made "everything."

How challenging for the kids.

2 Replies

The contribution of the Federal government to stem cell research is a small contribution -- it has not been nationalized. Already there is nearly $4 billion in private and state monies committed to stem-cell research over the next decade, with another three-quarters of a billion dollars under active consideration. There's no shortage of private funding for research. Geron Corp. and UCLA are ongoing stem cell research centers, as an an example, that have depended primarily on private and state funding (thanks to the Governator, a Republican).

The action of President Bush was more religious ideological symbolism than anything else. Obama's lifting of the ban is an ideological statement that religion has no place in dictating to scientist what they legally can explore. Not that I'm not opposed to, along with nearly every scientists, human cloning ("Eleventh Hour" on CBS had a very good dramatic presentation of the potential evils of human cloning).

This is a side-tracking of the real problem, that there are Creationists and IDiots who would like evolution completely removed from science classes and their fact-less theories introduced. They are also flaunting the law of attrition by trying to get legislation passed for these false scientific theories to be included in lesson plans for students to swallow it all like a souffle laced with small doses of strychnine. Science does not attempt to poison the minds of those religious people who go to church by legally forcing evolution be offered as an alternative to Creationism in Bible study classes. But the thought police of Creationists/IDers want it introduced into government funded schools and will settle, at first, on small doses to "augment" an evolution lesson plan.

2 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Stem cells are not human life. IDjits don't know the difference, because they ignore science.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Of coarse it is! Where does the discussion take them once they declare something was designed by god? ummmm....ahhh.....ummmm.....ahhhh....well, god made "everything."

How challenging for the kids.

I agree that what they are doing in Hampshire is a bad idea. It is okay for a teacher to answer questions about intelligent design, but they should not be introducing the subject to the class. One critic of the Hampshire plan was quoted as saying: "If the teacher raises the topic, then it takes on an authority that it does not deserve."

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

Well, of course, and I've stated it several times before, the teacher has to intelligently answer if a student asks a question about Genesis or it's disguised clone, ID, or even "Of Pandas and People" (as if they'd check that out of the library on their own, especially since libraries aren't buying the book and DI is trying to donate them to get them in). The teacher has no dictum to follow to state that the religious concepts are wrong. They can simply state that it's a theological consideration a student can explore in the Bible and with the clerics of their own religion.

I wonder if an educated librarian if given the book OPAP would accept it and then shelve it under fiction, fantasy?

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Im going to have to check out where the town libraries in PA have filed OPAP. Good Question Wiz. I hope I have enuff data to publish statistics on this

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Of coarse it is! Where does the discussion take them once they declare something was designed by god? ummmm....ahhh.....ummmm.....ahhhh....well, god made "everything."

How challenging for the kids.

How challenging for the thread. Do you really go about year after year with that simple-minded attitude. It must be very tiresome for those you come into contact with.

It is incredible to contemplate someone who is adamantly convinced that this debate, which is related to the tension between the higher contemplative life of the rational, intellectual side of mankind and the vegetative appetites which our base animal nature has passed on to us, and which has been exercising the minds of the philosophers and moral sages for over 2,5oo years, can be resolved by such a banality which only makes sense on the assumption that man is identical with plants and animals.

There is not the slightest point in you continuing to read this thread or to continue contributing to it if you are so determined to learn nothing from it.

We are only potentially virtuous. We need to do something to make us virtuous and your position simply writes us off as no better than pigs and rats and seaweed. All the evil which has been perpetrated down the ages, in whatever name it has acted under, is proof of how powerful the vegetative, animal appetites are in us and, bearing in mind modern weaponry, how important it is to counteract these baser instincts in ourselves.

And here you are not only rubbishing our pitiful and flawed attempts to do so but actually promoting an idea, evolution, which raises these sensual appetites to the role of being the sole arbiter of our fate.

Where does the discussion of moral and ethical values take us if we act as if there is no Supreme Being and everything is a meaningless struggle for existence? We have a fair idea where that discussion takes us if we act as if there is a Supreme Being and to do that we have to assume that there is, irrespective of whether there is or not, which we can never know, and promote it.

You are attacking civilisation itself.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Stem cells are not human life. IDjits don't know the difference, because they ignore science.

What is human life then? It is the embryo from which the stem cells are derived from where the ethical problems arise.

I know you know the difference is when the clock ticks midnight of the 24th week of pregnancy then that's human life and 5 seconds before that it isn't despite you having no way of measuring anything accurately and that you simply put on Ignore, for your personal convenience, the scientific fact that the growth from embryo to birth is a dynamic motion in the life process about which you know sweet **** all. You are killing babies with word games which have no scientific validity.

1 Reply

@spendius,

And then you come on talking about "our kids" and "science".

It's mind blowing.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

Quote:

I agree that what they are doing in Hampshire is a bad idea.

I'm sure the people of Hampshire are wringing their hands at the thought that you should think that wande. You should get over there pronto and straighten the silly sods out. You could be council leader and it's big money.

Quote:

It is okay for a teacher to answer questions about intelligent design, but they should not be introducing the subject to the class.

Is that a fact!!!??? You're really into detailed state control aren't you?

Teachers are human beings and they are subjected to training and selection procedures. In a classroom they are in loco parentis. And they teach a class for a year, sometimes 3 or 4 years. If nothing of their personal viewpoints is to be communicated to the little monsters they are in charge of they are going to have to act like speak your weight machines.

All you seem to be interested in is playing around with caricatures and stereotypes which don't exist in reality for no other reason than to prop up your ridiculous position.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Is Hampshire a nice place to live, spendi? Do you think they will allow me to achieve my dream of total state control? Smile

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

Yes. Hampshire is a lovely place. The population (about 1.7 million souls) is conservative in the main. Winchester is the administrative capital and a cathedral city.

I think they would run you out of town on a pole if ever you dared set foot in the place. And with my full-hearted approval.

0 Replies

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know