9
   

England/Wales:Third of science teachers want creationism taught in school

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2008 03:30 pm
@BillRM,
Had they been in possession of guns you would never have made a beach-head and you brought guns with you from European Christian technology which you had no hand in discovering and developing. And a lot else. The Bible too.

The first few thousand out of the phone book would have made just as good a job of it with those advantages. Rocket technology was European. Same with the telegraph, electronic communication, internal combustion engines, evolution theory, nuclear energy, movies--you name it--it's from here. So you worked it up with the energy that geysered from holes you drilled. You would never have found the place starting out in your underpants and that's about all the native Americans were wearing at the time. In the cowboy movies at least.

It's striking how many American men wear shorts. Men here who wear shorts are considered eccentric and with sandals and no socks barred from all decent pubs in the country. And rightly so. It's a horrible sight. Thin guys are just as bad as fatties. Shorts need high heels to be acceptable.

But you did invent never being wrong--I'll admit that. Mom can't have her pride and joy ever being wrong now can she? Run that up the democratic flagpole and you get millions of majors, diplomas, degrees, doctorates and professers any one of whom can be quoted to scientifically prove any old idiotic idea that comes into your head. That's why Jesus said "forget Mom--and Dad too-and the whole ******* tribe--pain in the arse." What a cult eh?

Take a look at the list of names which became presidents. "Obama" is a dramatic change. It might symbolise what Mr Gorer called the "revenge of the oppressed." It's a theory about a landscape sucking you in and adapting you to it in the same way it adapted other peoples to it before. Some of the people who spent a long time in India in the Empire days had difficulties with England on their return. Lawrence of Arabia went full-blown Bedouin after a couple of weeks riding horses in the desert. Gauguin went native as soon as that bint ran into his tent the first night he got there and said "I your's, me with you."

But many maintain that it's only a theory and a bullshit theory at that which only a dipshit would put out on one of his pissed-up rants.

But I'm sober now so I can't do one of them.

I personally, as they say when they seek to extend the time period they are speaking to a length unnecessary for the meaning to be conveyed efficiently, do not give a shite whether the theory has any validity. It's no skin off my nose. "It'll all come out in the wash" my father used to say. A sound Darwinian adage.


littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 08:35 am
I teach in a middle school in Eastern Massachusetts. I go to classes there so I can sort of reteach to special ed students when needed. There are three science teachers in 7th grade. The one I go to is, seemingly, skipping evolution entirely. He made it clear to me that he is a republican by the way he was teaching the students (used Mccain, Palin and Swartzenhager as models). He told the class that cells were designed by god or "what ever other designer you believe in". The other classes are doing evolution, but he is sticking to cell structure for the next few weeks.

He can do what he wants because he's a great teacher. And he also teaches students to be organized, self-motivated, and how to study and take notes.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 10:24 am
@littlek,
He would had have a real problem with the younger version of myself in that class!

I was a real nerd when it came to science and have no problem at all challenging the teacher when I was under the impression he or she was wrong.

One fact I did love is that on tests in science you was either correct or not correct and even if the teacher strongly dislike you there was no good way for him to get back at you.

My one physic teacher was very proud of the fact that no one had ever score a 100 in his final exams.

Well I got back my paper mark with a 99 and looking at it I found that he had stated that a decimal point was wrong however it was a water mark on the paper not a decimal point.

I went to him in front of the class and demanded that I be the first and so far the only student to get a 100 on one of his finals.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 10:30 am
@spendius,
Sorry guns was nice however match locks was not all that superior to bows in range and they are far slower in rate of fire.

It was not weapons as must as the whole range of military technology and organization that cause the "evil" Europeans to eat up the natives.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 06:15 pm
@BillRM,
There was also the tobacco trade and what Benjamin Franklin called the "multiplication tables." It seems you were rather like rabbits in those days.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 05:02 am
@spendius,
Well for the first century or so, the Europeans settlers were greatly out number. The first Europeans settlement on the east coast was wiped out as a matter of fact. Look up the so call lost colony of Virginia.

The reasons why the population balance change was their technology in farming and social organization allow the Europeans to support a larger population.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 05:25 am
@BillRM,
Bill-

I was only hinting that this business was somewhat more complex than a number of A2K "historians" might lead you to think and that if the matter interests you it is better to look into it thoroughly keeping in mind that time passed then at the same rate it passes now. It was something of a slog. And at walking pace even in good weather.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 06:17 am
@littlek,
I cant argue with that teachers approach despite his leanings. He is avoiding the issue and is not confusing kids too badly by posing alldifferent baseless hypotheses. By the time the kids reach biology in 9th or 10th, itll be different and , in most schools the approach is to teach the acsendency of life in a developmental/evolutionary approach. At that time it would be a travesty to ignore evolution while teaching mammalian development or the difference between gymnosperm and angiosperm plants , for example.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 07:49 am
@farmerman,
I should think kids of 8 could easily be taught that difference. And it would confuse them too. They could end up thinking oak and magnolia were the same thing.

These big words serve only to allow those who use them to preen.

And there is no ascendency in life. One might go from Ovid to Jack the Ripper thinking things were ascending.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 07:53 am
@spendius,
Why is erectile dysfunction in your tags effemm. What is it?

Bob Dylan said that he wished witchy women would leave him alone.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 08:29 am
@littlek,
Quote:
He told the class that cells were designed by god or "what ever other designer you believe in".

Then he's misinforming his students. Doesn't sound like a great teacher to me, even if he's doing a good job with the other areas of study. He has chosen to put his own belief system above the right of the children to learn proper science.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 08:38 am
@farmerman,
As has been pointed out before, "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". To leave out, or avoid the basic principle underlying all of modern biology is not reflective of an education system which really intends to educate.

Quote:
Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.
" Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (1973)
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 09:11 am
@rosborne979,
Well okay ros. Explain lingerie shops and the Kama Sutra. They are both biological.

At least the teacher who littlek praised qualified his statement with "whatever other designer you believe in."

You don't qualify your remark. You said "Nothing" and here you are can't explain frilly underwear nor monogamy nor artificial birth control nor abortion nor lubricating gels and much else. And it's all biological. And evolution is bereft of the lot.

But having me on Ignore gets you out of it eh? As will anybody be who queries your "nothing". You don't even know what a simple word like "nothing" means.

You should be kept well away from kids. We don't want you replacing that science teacher.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 09:23 am
Creationists are like the guy who works jigsaw puzzles using a hammer and scissors to make the pieces fit where he wants them to go.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 09:37 am
@edgarblythe,
That's a nice compliment actually considering that the Christmas festivities resulted which the science of evolution would never have thought of. The science of evolution itself results from our Creation story.

It might be said that storytelling results from Creationism.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 10:49 am
@rosborne979,
I recognize the sense of Dobzhansky"s statement, but it wasnt a statement that was made to underpin evolution butto reinforce the interweaving of all kinds of evidence. As such I dont think that kids are of equal intelligence to be able to handle Dobzhansky or evolution or even "ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny".

I think that, to make a big stink in 7th grade will merely harden the resolve of the Anti-science "Dont **** with my God" set and will confuse the kids more than it will reveal.
Theres plenty of time to undo that bullshit with good science in the place that its supposed to be taught. I dont know about NH, but in PA, we have several science requirements in the standardized curriculum and , for 7th grade, the strict adherence to an evolutionary synthesis in the natural science units is discouraged because it gets ahead of the game and the teachers in the middle schools arent necessarily qualified to teach more advanced biology. In the 7th grade its mostly an introduction to the natural sciences and the scientific method and thats about it.

Im certain that a discussion like ours with the various opinions (sane and otherwise) of evo/devo,we would only confuse the kiddies big time. Its like believing in Santa Claus, Id rather do it when the kids are sufficiently armed with other reinforcing concepts (like the scientific method, or introductory algebra to understand HArdy Weinberg distributions, or deductive reasoning from evidence).Then Im sure the kids in the 9th or 10th grades will better appreciate evolutions origins and power of reason. If you tell kids that Santa is a myth when theyre , say 5 years old, it may be traumatic than when theyre 7(Anyway, I like the kids to discover it for themselves when they sneak down and see the parents at the tree, or(like my kids) learn to go snooping in the house v ery early in life.)
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 10:53 am
@edgarblythe,
Creationists are also like the bullshit artists sitting around the campfire making up hairbrain tales about their origins to scare constituents silly and assure permanent extortion in the name of piety.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 12:15 pm
@farmerman,
Hi FM,

I'm not saying that we should give young students more detail than they can handle. No need to try to teach the about genetic drift when they haven't even yet been told that all living things descend from common ancestry.

But I do think that the education system needs to be consistent right from the beginning in expressing the fact that science understands the natural world to be a certain way and that evolution is the core concept of biology. Common ancestry is a concept that even small children can grasp since mommy and daddy and cousins are all a very real part of the evolutionary process, so I don't think our educators should shy away from it.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 02:05 pm
Quote:
You said "Nothing" and here you are can't explain frilly underwear nor monogamy nor artificial birth control nor abortion nor lubricating gels and much else. And it's all biological. And evolution is bereft of the lot.


The above three contributions are known as running into the bushes.

Quote:
I like the kids to discover it for themselves when they sneak down and see the parents at the tree, or(like my kids) learn to go snooping in the house v ery early in life.)


I was 14 before I tried that. Some force drew me to the keyhole of the maid's room. When I had a proper snoop a bit later I was quite astounded by what I found. I never saw the "The Parents at the Tree." Is that in the instruction manuals? Are you getting a bit nostalgic?

It's amazing how these liberal intellectuals are always making up little tales which redound to their already swollen "good guy all round" reputation. It's as if they are always in need of reassurance and as nobody is willing to step forth to provide it needs must comes into play. This one is the tug on the heartstrings trick.

It's a pity effemm doesn't offer an explanation of "why" he likes the kids performing this ridiculous ritual which the bloody parents have got them hopping through by starting it up. And parents are noted for starting things up on their own account. Nothing in evolution would ever say "Hey-we should have A christmas." ( a creature in the early stages of selecting for ability with upper and lower case calligraphy. Say.)

And in the unlikely event of anything doing so nobody would take any notice.

Nor an explanation of "How" he came to "like" such a fatuous performance.

And there is an explanation. You needn't worry about that. A scientific one.

I picked up on snooping about the house.

I saw one of these little monsters, a 4yr old female, dressed as a Princess, or a fairy, who, when presented with a carrier bag not unlike those they deliver sand in, picked out each of the 20 or 30 presents, all wrapped in paper with Christmassy (massy punning in metallurgy) designs and with labels saying loving messages, tossed them all away unopened and when the bag was empty she said "Have you not got my anything else?. She's going to be big trouble one day. She scoffed half of my eclairs when her Mum wasn't looking, then she didn't want to eat her dinner, then her Mum got mad and she got mad back and it really was quite festive for a while.





0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Dec, 2008 02:35 pm
It is evolution in action. The Mum in the story had fierce spats with her Mum to the extent that she bolted to London at 18 all the way from Vancouver. Had that not happened the little monster would not exist. This Mum really loves seeing kids doing things she has started off with the obvious intention of finding recognition for the superiority of her genes in her daughter what with her being unable to manage it for herself. It can't be natural because there are many parents who don't engage in such things.

The more you hear people saying that Christmas is getting crazier by the year the more you hear the voice of the street saying "hang on a minute."

It's possible that the recession, some recession eh?, has come in the nick of time.

You're going to have to start treating the little monsters for what they are rather than as playthings for the parents, or go completely nuts.

Put Bing Crosby on.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/31/2023 at 07:58:35