Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

The very nature of science itself ask for children to think for themselves. So why would they wish to pass laws which imply that they are not already encouraged to think for themselves. The answer is obvious: The laws they are proposing are disingenuous and counter to the facts.

It is not. It is to tell the kids long lists of scientific facts and to bow down before those doing the telling as if they are the new numinosity of life on earth.

Not all scientific facts though. Just some of the more obvious and acceptable ones which are simple enough for their unformed minds and within reach of the teacher's proficiency levels. Which is to say hardly any at all.

Yes, spendi, "scientific facts" vs pie-in-the-sky ID.

We like pie ci. It makes life more interesting.

The bottom line is that it's not fair to imply to our students that there is any controversy in science over the basics of evolution, because there isn't.

Any law, or proposal, or standard in teaching which implies such a thing does a disservice to our children and to our future.

There has increasingly been no conflict among scientists and science teachers in the details of evolution, either. This is precisely where the myopic fundamentalist conservatives around the world, not just America, are in denial. They need to do a Step 1: I am an anti-evolutionist and it has made my ignorance the prime directive.

But I think the IDiots will continue to take pot-shots at details they don't have the brains to understand and will fall back on myths and superstitions, trying to bundle them up to resemble a science. Obviously, even conservative judges see through them like a sheet of Saran Wrap.

That is stupid and devious.

And I don't just assert things like that. Anybody can assert anything they want. Which is also stupid.

It is stupid because there can't be an increase in nothing,

It is devious because-

a- it says a great deal less than it might be thought to say to semi-literates.

One might go from milli-micro "no conflict" to micro "no conflict", in the manner a sparrow fart goes from 000000000001 on the niffometer to 0.000000000001o5 in a gale, and be said to be "increasing". A possible insignificance is translated into something momentous simple by a glib turn of phrase. Whoring our precious language in order to find some support for one's subjective views which are, incidentally, not shared by at least 85% of Americans. It might even have been made up to un-nerve the unwary.

b-It makes the assumption, caused by rabid ego ejaculate, that A2Kers are semi-literate and easily un-nerved. Such people are always unwary.

c-In the absence of proof I will remain convinced that there are many points of conflict between "scientists" and science teachers. That is one of the reasons I am often Ignored and villified. I will refrain from mentioning the others as I'm in a charitable mood at the moment.

d- the phrase "details of evolution" is another of those flabby expressions which are only fit to carry a burden of meaning relating to the rose coloured spectacles through which the composer of the above quoted utter drivel is contemplating his image in a large mirror.

It really is hard to believe that anybody could go around pompously spouting such meaningless nonsense year after year with no end in sight.

As if "fair" has the remotest connection with evolution.

And when it comes to "disservice to our children" I think the children might be better served by you very silly adults not saddling them with the debts and the effects of your character projections which you are currently engaged in shoving up their arses with enthusiasm.

What does evelution have to say about tight-knit gene pools in which statements of the type ros and LW have just graced our thread with are not only commonplace but actually pass as sensible.

``Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why . On the other hand, the people whose business is to ask why, the philosophers, have not been able to keep up with the advances of scientific theories. In the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science, to be their field and discussed questions such as: Did the universe have a beginning? However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists." Stephen Hawking

And Spengler had said the same thing nearly a century earlier. And what does it say about your lot's scientific credentials. (The WHAT!!?? Ed.)

Spendi, the hypocrisy. Setting aside, for a moment who's right, you've defended this very thing a number of times.

The sad sack pontificator has had his soap box kicked out from under him so many times, his butt must he be heavily bruised by now.

Hawking said philosophers, not theologians, even if one wants to accept that they are cockeyed philosophers.

I'm afraid I don't understand that JT. What thing are you suggesting I have defended?

Perhaps you might take the time to read your own quote once more and do us the honour of rephrasing your remark in a way which might make it reasonably sensible in the light of it.

Spendi, you've stated that it was necessary to teach falsehoods to students in order to steer them along the desired, read "correct" course.

Hawking said philosophers, not theologians, even if one wants to accept that they are cockeyed philosophers.

Only Spendi would know the "correct" way -- he's already stated he prefers the missionary position.

I don't believe you.

He said in your quote "or anyone else except a few specialists." As did Spengler who put a number on mathematicians you could count on one hand. In the 1920s.

Your science, all of you, is an anachronism. For playing it to the gallery of awestruck worshippers.

Can't say I blame you if you're short of cash.

Which is when you can see the whites of their eyes. With mirrors there is a wider range than I suspect your imagination runs to LW. Doggy without mirrors is not unlike a bag over the head.

The main thing is lack of unnecessary exertion as Steve Martin demonstrated in the Man with Two Brains.

I can just imagine Splendiouse's teaching in a Christian creationists science class in the USA school system -- all the kids down on their knees, hands religiously held together looking up to their God whilst the teacher ( Splendiouse's ) says, very scientifically --- " repeat after me -- thank you our lord who created the earth we live on, in 7 days, thank you lord for starting it on the Monday and finished it on the Saturday, and making Sunday a day off, so you can listen to the two people you had just created, get down on their knees and praise you."
Then for the rest of the science lesson the pupils could hear how the atheists teachers in that other science class was all wrong, how they were just guessing about the world and animals and all the other things, when we know for a facts that our God created all things and the other scientists held our god in contempt and being atheists wouldn't go to heaven where the streets were paved with gold.. Blah blah blah