Eeoooow.Whee are beeeingg snooty tonightinightie.
Hear that folks!
He doesn't put any serious efforts into reading my posts.Ohmeeohmi.H'im mortified.
Judging by his posts it looks as if he doesn't know what serious effort is.
But 'e doeseth know they aren't worth it despite him not having put any serious effort into reading them.He probably reads everything like that.Why should he make an exception for little ol' me?
He must think he can sort the nation's education out without the bother of clutter.He should be working for the Education Dep't at the very top if he can show them how to avoid clutter.Does he not know that all good education crystallised out of clutter.
I can assure the dear readers that the Footballer's Wives post was not only meaningful but deeply meaningful although I'll admit a tricky agenda for speed readers.He probably thinks Titantic was about a big ship hitting an iceberg and sinking with great loss of life.
Usual underestimation.
spendi, while I've not taken the effort to chase down the website you reference, I'd feel comfortable placing a wager there is a bit of misdirection in play. It is not particularly uncommon for well-educated, essentially secular, not-particularly-religious folks to profess and proclaim Roman Catholic or Anglican faith and membership, and to participate at least desultorilly, in parish activities, in order to gain for their offspring admission to academies operated under the aegis and by the functionaries of either faith, which academies frequently are single-sex and most typically are ranked well ahead of other religious secular (private or public) institutions of learning. Such Roman Catholic or Anglican academies tend as well to be rather prestigious, and, while faith is a part of the curriculum of such institutions, it does not drive the curriculum - it is adjunct to it.
I doubt seriously many well-eductated, well-to-do, well placed folks send their kids to bible-thumper schools; opting out of the public education sector very frequently is predicated on a desire to obtain for one's children a competent, well rounded education and to simultaneously instill in the little darlings a sense of honor and discipline - attributes for which other institutions of learning are not particularly noted.
Again a guess, but I would hazard that it is girls/young women who most often are so placed by their parents, with the boys/young men more often being shipped off to private military academies, which untill just recently have not been particularly welcoming toward students of the gentler gender.
I'll note too I find it wholly unsurprising you'd equate fact, logic, reason, and clear exposition with over-used tricks amounting to a few wear-blunted arrows; such an assessment would be wholly consistent with both the proposition you forward and your style of presentation.
Like I said-Sell Dover property.It's on the skids.It might be early days but last in first out is a Union rule whereas first in first out is a Harold Wilson rule.And he was no mug.
When plaintiffs like they had get legal approval it's just time to bugger off.But don't tell anybody until the brainy have sold up.
Quote: "When plaintiffs like they had get legal approval it's just time to bugger off."
Is this written in the English language?
SOUTH CAROLINA UPDATE (continued)
Quote:State board stands by evolution-only rule
(By BILL ROBINSON, thestate.com, March 9, 2006)
The state Board of Education rebuffed the Education Oversight Committee Wednesday by rejecting its bid to relax South Carolina's evolution-only approach to teaching biology.
The decision gave science educators and scientists a momentary victory in an increasingly intense cultural skirmish over whether theories competing with evolution should be taught in high schools.
The board's 11-6 vote, however, raises more questions than it answers.
"I suspect I probably will be having a conversation with my legislators about this in the future," said Darrell Shier of Columbia, a parent who took a vacation day from his job as a utility company engineer to attend the state school board meeting.
Shier, who testified he supported the board majority, and others who packed the Rutledge Building conference room agreed on one thing: What happens next is unclear.
The two public education policymaking agencies are at an impasse over how to revise a standard that high school biology teachers are supposed to use as a reference when crafting lessons about evolution and natural selection.
Lawmakers have threatened to intervene. And the state's attorney general could weigh in.
State law empowers the Department of Education to write standards that describe what students are expected to know.
The Education Oversight Committee has the authority to approve or reject the Education Department's work but cannot rewrite or amend standards. It can only suggest changes.
Since last fall, the agencies have been at odds.
Wednesday, a majority of state school board members stood with the Education Department's proposed version, which would direct teachers to focus exclusively on Charles Darwin's theory.
A 10-member majority of the EOC, which monitors school reform, last month recommended changes that challenge evolution and permit competing views.
State government lawyers say they are unaware of any language in state law offering a way to resolve those differences.
Trey Walker, chief spokesman for Attorney General Henry McMaster, said "it would be premature to speculate" whether the state's top lawyer might intervene.
State education Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum said high school biology teachers should continue to use standards in place. The attorney general thinks otherwise.
"Our legal analysis is correct," said Tenenbaum, who is an attorney, adding "our current standards are excellent."
"If this is a stalemate, it'll just have to be a stalemate."
Bob Cook, an assistant state attorney general, testified Wednesday he stands behind a nonbinding opinion that says the state school board made a mistake in December when it voted to reinstate current science standards for high school biology classes after it previously approved revisions.
Rep. Bob Walker, a Spartanburg Republican and EOC member who supports the more flexible language, was livid after the school board vote.
Walker said he had no immediate plans to sponsor legislation or a resolution that would bring the Legislature into the fray, but he hastened to add he has colleagues who might be inclined to do so.
State Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville and another EOC member, said asking students to "critically analyze" lessons and facts should be widely embraced.
"I encourage you not to let this golden opportunity pass you by," Fair said.
School board member Ron Wilson, who supported the EOC recommendation, said "nothing in this destroys anything. Let's try something different. If it's a mistake, we'll undo it. What are we afraid of."
But it was Shier, the parent of a 3-year-old boy, who left many with the most indelible impression in a tension-filled day.
Shier talked of his son's fascination with bugs and a father's hopes the boy will grow up to be a scientist.
"I want him to receive the best possible science education in South Carolina. They're trying to wedge religion into the science classroom.
"Do what is best for my son and the state of South Carolina," he challenged the board.
wande-
That's not a bad report.
How are these two bodies constituted in that state.
With reference to ros's "clutter" I came across this-
Quote:"Tabula rasa"
Life is a blank state of confusion, lost in which everyone seems to be: yet no one can find a way out of the darkness and befuddled crowds.
spendius,
The two bodies both have authority regarding public education policy in South Carolina. I am not clear how the two bodies are constituted. The news item does explain some distinctions between the two:
Quote:State law empowers the Department of Education to write standards that describe what students are expected to know.
The Education Oversight Committee has the authority to approve or reject the Education Department's work but cannot rewrite or amend standards. It can only suggest changes.
Right now these two bodies are at an impasse concerning state standards for evolution education. South Carolina authorities have not yet determined a resolution to the conflict. For now, the existing science education standards remain in effect. Apparently some state legislators are willing to fight for some type of evolution disclaimer despite the fact that the state's education department opposes that.
wande-
Thanks.
To what extent are these two bodies elected by the general public or appointed from on high by mysterious forces within the state structure?
timber wrote-
Quote:It is not particularly uncommon for well-educated, essentially secular, not-particularly-religious folks to profess and proclaim Roman Catholic or Anglican faith and membership, and to participate at least desultorilly, in parish activities,
So,at last,an admission that what people say is not necessarily what they think.That there are other considerations in the background which is a key part of the position I've been taking all along.And the usual suspects are, of course, money,greed and ambition, and the reading of the whole argument between ID and anti-ID is naive if these factors are not uppermost in people's minds however forcefully the professions and proclamations are acted out in public view.
Which is not to say some don't actually believe.
In the 1870s another argument swirled around Darwin which like this one is still raging today.There was a big demo in Oxford last week end.
It was about experiments on live animals.
Darwin wrote to an anti-vivisectionist friend (Ms Martineau again)-
"Physiology can progress only by experiments on living animals.They must be conducted freely in the search for abstract truth."
He hoped that abuses would be corrected by "the improvement of humanitarian feeling."
Which I must say had a long way to go in those days concerning humans.
Desmond & Moore then add-
"In other words legislation would be fatal."
They hummed and hawed until Huxley came in saying that the fox-hunting House of Commons would have to save science,fearing for their own skins.
This is an answer to those on here who claim that a small amount of probably ignored laxity in evolutionist's claims of total dominance (see search for abstract truth above) in education will lead to a decline in American science.
And I have made that point a few times and that is just one of many that has been completely ignored.
And Huxley was a saw-edged steel toothed anti-IDer if ever there was one.I wouldn't be surprised if he was capable of conducting experiments on his wife if he thought there was a reputation making scientific paper to be got out of it.
How's that for a bit of genteel smearing Mr c (I can't write)i.?
CREATIONISM IN ENGLAND
The British Humanists Association recently sent this letter to the Minister for Schools, MP Jacqui Smith:
They do seem very concerned don't they?
Four uses of "concern" and two in one paragraph.
What are they concerned about.It looks like being seen to be expressing concern is their main concern which is a well known evolutionary strategy for making money.
Some people are very concerned at the BHA's attitudes to things like experiments on live animals,euthenasia,contraception and possible eugenics initiatives for those with less inherited advantages than many members of their lobby group possess.
I don't think anybody will be surprised if the minister fails to respond to this letter.I would be mildly surprised if she does.
The BHA conducts humanist weddings,whatever they are,gay affirmations,baby namings and funeral ceremonies and thus are self-evidently in direct competion with churches in what is undoubtedly a lucrative market.
Evolutionists generally sympathise with the work of the BHA.
spendius,
I understand how you feel about the BHA. But surely you yourself could have some influence with MP Jacqui Smith. (You may find that the two of you are "soul mates".) Can you find out if she is planning to include intelligent design in the national science curriculum?
wande-
I needn't bother.
I wouldn't imagine she's planning anything other than riding the next promising looking bandwagon.
If it is to be ID it will be because of having detected a degree of support for it in the population generally or amongst the voters in her constituency.
I would guess that she is reasonably familiar with Ruskin and is aware of him saying that Darwin had a "deep & tender interest in the brightly coloured hinder half of certain monkeys".
Perhaps any anti-evolutionism in her make up has been caused by fellow MPs,not noted for discretion in private,making Darwinian jests at her expense.
It is of some interest how people come to accept these varying propositions.Darwin did suggest that one might as well try to illuminate the night sky with a candle as try to shed light on metaphysical notions but the cause of people holding to them may be traceable to seminal experiences as well as to naked self-interest.
spendius wrote:I wouldn't imagine she's planning anything other than riding the next promising looking bandwagon.
If it is to be ID it will be because of having detected a degree of support for it in the population generally or amongst the voters in her constituency.
This is exactly the same motivation behind the support for ID among U.S. politicians. Surely you can counsel her against this, spendi! Tell her what's been happening in the United States on this issue.
"Counsel her against it".!!!!!!
What for?It's good fun.
Do you seriously think a Blair Babe minister can be told anything wande?
spendi,
If anyone can influence her, it would be you. Try to strike up a friendship with her and let us know about any policy decision she is planning.
wande wrote-
Quote:. I would need to get my wife's permission (that is not always easy).
Oh ho! as I thought.We IDers tell women what to do.I've been sneaking up on this dichotomy for months.
spendi,
You quoted me from a different thread!
(I suppose my admission represents acknowledgement of a scientific reality.)
from the BBC today
Creationism to be in GCSE papers
Creationist theories about how the world was made are to be debated in GCSE science lessons in mainstream secondary schools in England.
The subject has been included in a new syllabus for biology produced by the OCR exam board, due out in September.
Critics say the matter should only be discussed in R.E. because there is a danger of elevating religious theories to the status of scientific ones.
The government insists creationism is not being taught as a subject.
The exam board says students need to understand the background to theories.
Its new "Gateway to Science" curriculum asks pupils to examine how organisms become fossilised.
Teachers are asked to "explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation)".
Contentious
OCR, one of the three main exam boards in England, said that the syllabus was intended to make students aware of scientific controversy.
A spokesperson for the exam board said candidates needed to understand the social and historical context to scientific ideas both pre and post Darwin's theory of evolution.
"Candidates are asked to discuss why the opponents of Darwinism thought the way they did and how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence," he said.
"Creationism and 'intelligent design' are not regarded by OCR as scientific theories. They are beliefs that do not lie within scientific understanding."
The area is contentious, with critics claiming that inclusion of creationist or intelligent design theories in science syllabuses unduly elevates them.
James Williams, science course leader at Sussex University's school of education, told the Times Educational Supplement: "This opens a legitimate gate for the inclusion of creationism or intelligent design in science classes as if they were legitimate theories on a par with evolution fact and theory.
"I'm happy for religious theories to be considered in religious education, but not in science where consideration could lead to a false verification of their status as being equal to scientific theories."
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which oversees the development of the national curriculum, in effect guiding exam boards, said discussions of "intelligent design" or "creationism" could take place in science classes.
The National Curriculum Online website says for science at Key Stage 4 (GCSE level): "Students should be taught how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example Darwin's theory of evolution)."
Classes should also cover "ways in which scientific work may be affected by the context in which it takes place (for example, social, historical, moral, spiritual), and how these contexts may affect whether or not ideas are accepted."
A spokesperson for the Department for Education and Skills said: "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools and are not specified in the science curriculum".
In the United States, there have been court cases over what schools should teach.
Last month scientists there protested against a movement to teach intelligent design - the theory that life is so complex that it must be the work of a supernatural designer.
In December, a judge in Pennsylvania said it was unconstitutional to make teachers feature the concept of intelligent design in science lessons.
In England, the Emmanuel Schools Foundation, sponsored by Christian car dealer Sir Peter Vardy, has been criticised for featuring creationist theories in lessons in the three comprehensives it runs.
Sir Peter has said the schools present both Darwin's evolutionary theory and creationism.
In 2003, he said: "One is a theory, the other is a faith position. It is up to the children."
