Evolution? How?

The reference to private schools is a dodge--they have more funding, smaller class sizes, and they screen their entrants. Public schools, on the other hand, are obliged to take all students, without regard to physical or mental handicaps. They are also saddled with any number of idioicies in the way of teaching materials and textbooks, and have fewer resources to provide teaching staff and teaching materials and textbooks.

Which leaves us with the question of why you assert that children are poorly educated in science. Once again, you either ignore, or are ignorant of, those factors which make statistical references a questionable business at best.

So what you are saying is that they are 'saddled' with the consequences of the choices that they have made.

Talk about a dodge. I can't do it like you. You're good.

No, they are saddled with the consequences of a textbook publishing industry so frightened by the militancy of idiots such as those at Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute, as well as any other number of pressure groups alleging violations of political rectitude in the matters of race, history, language, etc., that the product of such publishers is below even the low standard upon which evangelical christians insist.

I might have known that, in Setantaland, all the problems of the public schools just HAD to be the fault of Christians SOMEHOW. It couldn't possibly be the fault of those actually making the administrative decisions and doing the teaching![/b]

Well, it sounds like there's the business opportunity you have been waiting for to make your millions.

We will all be content to watch your success and say we knew you way back when.....

Boldly go where no man has gone before, Setanta.

Do you mean that there are sub-idiots?Other levels of ludicrousness.

Gee!

REAL LIFE---the private schools have a major weapon that is not afforded the public schools, they routinely pitch out the underachievers and (as they state) the disruptive ones.
By this upcoming argument , you dont mean to infer that the private schools are producing better grades and SAT's because of some teaching process that involves Intelligent Design do you? If thats the case , then you must remove all the Catholic schools.They do a better job of their science teaching than public schools and they embrace an evolutionary , old earth, continental drifting, man from common ape ancestors . (The only diff ,is the Catholic schools spend considerable time on comprehension, whereas the public schools spend more time on the beuarocratic BS). Remove all the Catholic schools, the private Academies and the "magnet academies from your list of "private schools", cause they teach evolution and real science. Id like to see the statistics on the " religiously compelled home schooled" +the Conservative and Evangelical Academies and see how they stack up. I dont know the answer but Ill be willing to inspect> Are you willing to find the stats and cull out the Anti-evolution based schools from the ordinary Academies and Parochial schools . Of course well all leave out the AMish, since they arent required to be taught past 14 i Pa (probably most states with a significant Amish population)

I see in todays Lancaster and Harrisburg news that the Discovery Institute had released a statement saying that this is a mere bump on the road since they originally wanted the case not to go to trial (what a crock) They were there in a sweaty frenzy until the depositions and discovery ended. Then the silliness of their position kicked in.

Don't forget; there's a religious school in California that has filed a suit against the University of Calfornia, because UC does not recognize ID in their science course as a credit.

Then thats one for real life. I can think of about 100 Catholic schools in the Baltimore, Allentown, Harrisburg, and Philly diocese that teach evolution as the cornesrtone of their biology.
I judge a science fair regional each year and the CAtholic schools usually score the highest of all in this region.

Good find, Rex ... From the same source, these serve as additional nails in ID-iocy's coffin:

LSU scientists develop new theory about human genome evolution by tracking 'stealth' DNA elements


Genetic divergence of man from chimp has aided human fertility but could have made us more prone to cancer, Cornell study finds


Scientists Find Genome Structure Responsible for Gene Activation

A more detailed article treating the work referenced in Rex's link is here:

Ancient and Recent Positive Selection Transformed Opioid cis-Regulation in Humans

What the ID-iuots miss is the definition of a scientific theory. Their Creation/ID fairytale simply doesn't make the cut; it does not, and by the nature of its foundational core thesis cannot, fullfil the requirements. It is theology, not science. Period.

Ignorance drives the perception and contention that there is or can be a debate on the issue. The uneducated assume that something categorized a theory equates to a guess. In the real world of academics, a Scientific Theory is no "Guess" at all; it is something that has been extensively researched, conforms to the observed data, adequately serves both as descriptive and predictive, is not contraindicated, and is assumed to be the best available explanation of the issue at question; it is accepted as true.

A Scientific Law is a concise statement of fact, demonstrably true and descriptive or explanatory of some particular given thing, condition, or state of being. Scientific laws typically take the form of mathematic equations, often a single mathematic equation.

A Scientific Hypothesis best may be characterized as an educated guess, supported through deductive and inductive reasoning developed from critical consideration of observed evidence, and typically pertains to one specific single event or phenomenon. A valid hypothesis will conform to Scientific Laws and will meet expectations through either or both experiment or continued observation.

A Scientific Theory very nearly equates to a Scientific Law; it is based on a concatenation of validated hypotheses and proven laws, is readilly duplicable and has been multiply independently verified and demonstrated to consistently perform to expectation by unafilliated researchers over a period of time. Only a consensus of scientists, working through to the same conclusions using the same methodology, may establish a theory, one scientist or even a small group of scientists cannot estsblish a theory; an individual or smaller group may at best present a hypothesis.

A Scientific Law and a Scientific Hypothesis may be though of as components, sorta like the parts and sub-assemblies of a complex machine; any of them may be modified, ehanced, even replaced with a redesigned, improved sub-assembly or component, yet the complex machine remains essentially unchanged and continues as before to perform its design function.

A redesigned, improved windshield wiper assembly installed in place of one of earlier design and manufacture does not alter the fact a Buick is a Buick, nor materially alter the way that Buick performs its purpose; it simply improves the Buick's accomplishment of its design purpose. Its still a Buick, just a little bit better than it had been prior to the installation of the redesigned, improved parts.

Hi Farmerman,

Don't know about you, but I've always considered theistic evolutionists as IDers.

They believe that God ( Intelligence) planned and used ( Designed) the evolutionary process as His creative tool.

Am I off base, in your opinion, to class theistic evolutionists as one type of IDer?

This, to me, is one of the key reasons why 'ID' and 'creationism' (mostly referring to a direct creation, young earth, etc) are not necessarily the same thing. ( I believe you have also identified some IDers such as Behe as more or less evolutionists, no?)

If this is so, then wouldn't Catholic schools such as you are describing basically be teaching ID? I think many of them teach God as creator and evolution as the process, don't they?

The only difference is that theistic Evolutionsts (which I was one once) do not force their beliefs into the curriculum.

Also might I add that I went to a private school that was a United Reform Church Charity and they teach evolution too. And not once, not once, did anybody try to teach ID at all.

real life. The Catholic diocese keep the religion out of the biology class. period Even Pope JP II made a statement that clearly defined the church;s position that
"The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming" They have the good sense to keep religion and science in their propewr places.
The problem with the ID groups of today is that they were a direct outgrowth of "Scientific Creationism" in which their doctrines remained firmly fixed. The Catholic church , in the 1920's began dealing with this as a doctrinal issue and wound up modifying church dctrine over the years(Its really an interesting story how the RCC made the move over to "embrace" science)

We discussed that this Dover case was gonna be trouble for theIDers waaay back before the Dover case began. Many of us posted lengthy summaries of how the difference between science and "ministry" can be a subtle thing but the Creationists have left their forensic tracks all over this newer movement called ID. That was easily sorted out by Judge jones and , in his opinion , he excoriated the IDers for their cynical approach. Whether the RCC is an example of theistic evolution is immeterial to this discussion, theyve had the good sense to not stubbornly deny that science is incorrect. Instead they modeified their tradition to accomodate science in an almost seamless fashion(It did take some heavy politics though, I do admit)

My belief is that, shortly after depositions of all the witnesses, the Discovery Institute suddenly realized how "joined at the hip" ID and Creationism actually were. They wanted to appeal to a scientific reason but were unable to shake off the religious ties/ Had they waited another 10 years and, through efforts other than "quote mining" or arguing whether science was correct in its conclusions, they should have been sponsoring their own researches into such things as "systematic arrangement of parts" and lost the irreducible complexity garbage.
The overall appeal to, as ros calls, poofism or , as set fondly invokes "Our secret pal" has left these guys with a horrible precedent that, IMHO, after finishing Judge jones opinion last night , he has managed to

Discredit ID and link it to Creationism

Discredit all other present means of "getting ones nose under the tent"

Discredit and severely chastise the Iders in Dver Pa for their underhanded means of raising their banner

This has gotta hurt the movement, IMHO because, valid or not its starre decisis for many other fed districts. Itll first have to be dealt with on its own, because judge jones, in his opinion had clearly stated that "he sees no value in tying up the courts" (plural) time in matters such as these"

As far as theistic evolution, I have no arguments as long as, like the Catholic Church and many other Parochial and private schools, keep the places of science and religion separate and non overlapping.
Creationism and IDers (the core group of IDers) arose from the same program, namely Henry Morris"Flood Geology". The IDers did not think it through as to where that theology would lead. The Discovery Institute grew smack out of the Institute for Scientific Creationism. There was no line of obvious doctrinal separation.
What the lawyers didnt count on in this case was that, although Mike Behe is their chief witness, he couldnt be made to lie about his own beliefs which were more "Theistic evolution" not some branch of "poofism" . Ive consitently supported Mike even though I felt that his theology got him in the mix. Ive come away with an even stronger support of him as one who is really trying to search for Gods handprint on life, and thats what motivated him. He was more or less manipulated by the Discovery Institute to be a spokesman. However, under oath, in cross examination, his own beliefs (which I consider courageous and honest) hung him and by the domino theory, the entire case.
The case was lost by the evidence of lying and deceit used by the school board and the movement. It was lost on the basis of how the primary support documentation had the words Creationism scratched out and Intelliegent design added, with no change in follow-on definitions, and it was lost when Mike Behe agreed that he was basically a theistic evolutionist who, in order to have science include ID would have to be expanded to include the supernatural (in his case it was embarrasing because he had to admit that , yes, astrology was a manifestation of the supernatural sciences too)

So, real life, if your willing to jump onas a believer in theistic evolution, theres room on the ole buckboard for ya. Its just that wed argue what constitutes "evidence" I soryta doubt that youd be so inclined because your past statements kind of support a literal genesis as science. Then wed be tectonically separated by what Im gonna adopt as the "Jones Test" for validity. Has a nice ring about it, Jones test.

So , I dont think that you can include the common sense approach that the RCC has adopted to the mud headed approach that the Creationists ne IDers have taken. Theyve gotten their lunch handed to them pretty convincingly. If I was an IDer, Id be screaming for Johnson and Dembskis heads

Not necessarily--i did specify other special interest groups. I focussed on the imaginary friend crowd because i like to jerk your chain.



Yes, one can assign blame there, albeit, referentially. Text book publishers, like any other competent business group, try to provide the product with the best selling points. Public school administrators and teachers, like any other group of harried public employees, succumb to the pressure of the loudest-mouthed, pushiest special interest groups--on the "squeaky wheel" principle. In fact, one of the most notorious examples of this is the banning of the American classic Huckbleberry Finn because of the presence of the word n*gger in the text. (Note on political rectitude--i see nothing wrong with using the word n*gger in context, but am obliged to type it that way to get it pass the automated censors.)



The field of publishing crap textbooks is pretty well covered, no such opportunity exists.



As you know only my online screen name, this is idiocy on a par with most of your contentions.



Dog . . . where no dog has gone before . . .

Hi Farmerman,

My only point was that Catholics (and other theistic evolutionists) basically are IDers. They believe in God as creator and teach evolution as the process.

How they handle that in the classroom, as a logistical matter, is something else entirely. Obviously a Catholic school would have the freedom to teach the two aspects in two different subjects with no problem.

But theistic evolutionists (of which there are huge numbers) are basically taking an ID stance , IMO.

A survey referred to a number of times by Timberlandko indicates 40% of the membership responding to a survey by American Men and Women in Science took a theistic evolution viewpoint. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

I don't think the Dover situation really focused on this at all, did it?

(And , no , I'm not jumping on the bandwagon.)

rl, as pointed out numerous times, using the survey you cite as indication of "Scientific Support for Creationism/ID-iocy" is specious; what dieticians and mechanical engineers might or might not think of an issue entirely contained within The Earth and Life Sciences is immaterial in the face of the fact that Over 99.8% of Earth and Life Scientists Endorse The Standard Evolutionary Model. If an Earth/Life Scientist were to offer a critique of Information Theory, or of the role aesthetically pleasing presentation of meals plays in the overall picture of nutrition it would be equally irrelevant.

Your tactic in this instance has been ripped to shreds Here, Here, and Here, among many other examples from other participants in this discussion. The flag you wave is tattered beyond redemption or further use.

I refer you once again to a study directly pertinent to your manner of argument in this regard.

Those bastards ! ! !

The gummint will stop at nothing to achieve total mind control . . .

Hi Timber,

So what's your point? I said they were evolutionists.

Are they not doctrinally pure enough for you unless they are atheists/agnostics?

I thought evolution, in your view, did not address the question of God.

Evolutionists . . .

You crack me up . . .

There is a market for horseshit, but it ain't here . . .

More straw there, rl - in no wise did I suggest doctrinal consideration, nor did I refer either to agnosticism or atheism. The entire point is that Science does not - by definition cannot - address the imaginary.

Hang on timber-

Euclid thought light streamed out of his eyes.

Einstein imagined riding on a light beam on a train going at the speed of light.

Try Koestler's The Sleepwalkers.Big long list of addressing the imaginary in that.