The National Education Association has an obligation to remove that booth. I don't understand why this is allowed to continue, unless it's less about providing good information and more about not offending religion's sensibilities.
That booth should be tolerated no more than an astrology table, a tarot card reading tent, or videos depicting how Zeus and the Greek Gods' cosmic struggle for power affects the replication of DNA.
This **** literally makes me nauseous.
"American kids are falling behind other countries in science education? What? How can this be?
Quote:"American kids are falling behind other countries in science education?
In which case, they are out of their depth debating with people from other countries on scientific matters.
There are other possible reasons why this falling behind is taking place, if it is and I didn't say it was. To choose to blame religious belief is an assertion and in my view it is the seemingly ubiquitous employment of assertions in debate by the Americans I have come across, it looks to be second nature, that is a much more likely cause.
Logically, the use of assertions will lead to no other outcome.
Most of the Phd for science in the US are being given to foreign students. That is only the tip of the iceberg.
That's perfectly understandable c.i.
One can hardly grant PhDs to folks who have become conditioned to think that any assertion they fancy making is true on the basis of them having made it unless one's educational system has gone into freefall in which case it is perfectly logical and would obviosly allow that anybody can get a PhD if their Mum and Dad has made the appropriate social arrangements which it is exceedingly tempting to make on the grounds that having a PhD in the family tree is objective proof of the superiority of the genetic constitution of the said Mum and Dad and any cousins connected to such highly refined and much admired DNA or even,unjustifiably from a biological point of view, by spiritual relationships such as weddings, common economic interests or temporary sexual compatibility.
or maybe not. Remember spendi speaks only for the IDiot fringe of worldviews, so he must show his contempt of anyone whose academic credentials show that they were capable of hard work and stick-to-it-ivness to attain a terminal degree.
I dont think well have to worry about spendi's legacy in academics. (Unless its applied zymurgical product testing)
I was only offering a possible explanation for c.i.'s statement that-
Quote:Most of the Phd for science in the US are being given to foreign students.
I didn't say c.i.'s statement was true.
I do remember that Auberon Waugh used to publish a list every year in his Way of the World column, a masterpiece of literature, of the Edinburgh Engineering qualifiers and most of the names rhymed with Who Banged Gong or Mouse On Tongue. There was an occasional John Thomas Perkins but not very often.
Hey- is that witty or what?
Naturally, had I a PhD gained in the manner I described I would go about asserting that it was the result of my "hard work and stick-to-it-ivness" and not the activities of my Mum and Dad.
Anybody with a modicum of innate intelligence would understand that.
Intelligence isn't "innate."
I am bringing the following to your attention c.i. in order to show you that your assertion is disputable. I hope you read it for once. It is from Wikipedia. If you Google "innate" you will find a great deal more.
When you assert ideas which may influence young people you ought to respect them enough to have taken the trouble to find out what you are talking about. Any plonker can say that-Intelligence isn't "innate" after having read some other plonker saying it.
The matter is in dispute but you might notice that two of the greatest scientists in history, Descartes and Leibniz, who basically invented the Faustian scientific revolution which provides for all your comforts both sensual and psychological by dreaming up analytical geometry out of their imaginations, are on the other side to you. And anti-ID is a frontal attack on imagination.
This suggests that you know no science, do not think scientifically and simply cosy up to science as a social pose which you believe is superior to other poses. That is not a suitable qualification for campaigning on matters pertaining to the education of 50 million children half of whom have IQs less than 100 and most less than 110 and who are being prepared for the whole range of employments that the economy requires.
One wonders what young people who you might have influenced have derived from your assertions.
For myself I have no idea what either "intelligence" or "innate" actually mean when thought about more than superficially. The jury is out on whether a thought is a physical object or an immaterial entity. Obviously for anti-IDers is has to be the former. Anti-IDers could never tolerate the idea of immaterial entities. Even a wave of outrage which sweeps a nation at certain times is merely a aggregate of physical objects for an anti-IDer.
wande quoted a famous statement-
Quote:I would rather be the offspring of two apes than be a man and afraid to face the truth."
It takes all sorts. I would rather be a man than the offspring of two apes and I'll worry about being afraid of the truth when I discover somebody else who isn't afraid of it.
I wouldn't be influenced by anyone who just asserted that they were not afraid of the truth. I would soon show them how deluded they are.
This is good-
Quote:Richard Dawkins, who should need no introduction, but who will get one anyway--
Mr Mims admits there that the 1st para. is padding.
Piling up his insults to the reader he says-
Quote:You probably don't need me to tell you how it went.
We know how it went Mr Mims- $200 dollars ( £1= $ 2.02) for sitting on your arse copying out rubbish and all the little readers hanging on your every word in adoring awe.
I'll bet Mr Mims would rather be a man too. I think he might even be afraid of self-evident truths such as his article calls attention to.
A new insight into evolution has come from studying generations of red deer, reports Roger Highfield
Study said male and female deer need different attributes to survive
Successful fathers have less successful daughters, according to a study that helps to solve one of the puzzles of evolution.
The strongest of a species might be expected to produce the fittest offspring, so that the range of variation in a given creature will gradually diminish, as this process weeds out "bad genes" over the generations.
But variation is alive and well, whether in deer or in people, and a study by a team from the University of Edinburgh represents an important step solving this evolutionary puzzle, one that has baffled biologists for almost 30 years.
Studies of red deer published today in the journal Nature suggest that the most successful males are more likely to produce less fertile daughters. In other words, what are "good genes" for males may be bad for females, and vice versa.
Dr Josephine Pemberton, Dr Loeske Kruuk and Dr Katharina Foerster and colleagues in Oxford and Cambridge studied red deer (Cervus elaphus) living on the Isle of Rum, Inner Hebrides, between 1971 and 2005.
"This has not been studied in humans yet," Dr Foerster told The Daily Telegraph. "Theoretically, such effects are possible in humans too, but I think it is unlikely that they would be found. In modern humans, social and cultural influences affect fitness so much that it is difficult to quantify pure genetic effects."
advertisement
In all they followed 3,559 animals from eight generations and showed that male and female deer need different attributes to survive: genes which prove to be an advantage in fathers don't necessarily prove beneficial in daughters.
Males who win fights for females go on to produce daughters who have fewer offspring, whereas the daughters of less successful males demonstrate higher fertility. That is why natural populations are more diverse than thought by a simple minded use of the survival of the fittest. This also backs up theoretical predictions and results from fruit fly experiments.
The Rum red deer population featured in BBC Television's Autumnwatch last year, which showed the violent drama played out each year during the rut.
Dr Kruuk explains: "In the mating season, stags compete to gain control of harems of females. A male will fight off other suitors and hope to mate with all his females. Only the biggest and strongest males, with the largest antlers, will win the battle to control large harems.
"Natural selection means that the most successful individuals pass on their genes more frequently than the losers, so in the next generation more individuals should be carrying those good genes. As time goes on we should expect the low quality genes to be lost, causing less variation between individuals.
"But we still see huge differences between individuals in a population. This effect of the best males not producing the best daughters is possibly an important reason why such differences remain. Maybe the idea that some genes are better than others is just too simplistic: it depends on the sex of the individual animal."
The findings are further complicated by those of another study, conducted on wild red deer in Spain, which showed that macho males tend to have more sons, while wimps have more daughters, revealing how fathers can influence the sex ratio.
Whadyathunk eh? Do they teach that?
I liked this bit best-
Quote:simple minded use of the survival of the fittest.
and this is cute-
Quote:The findings are further complicated
Did you notice how you didn't notice "helps to solve" and "important step" as you soaked it up.
Seemed to have something to do with the "might is right" principle which is ideal thought food for adolescents I must say.
I can't figure out what a feminist would make of it. If she's any good as a woman her dad's a wimp and if her dad's a top gun she's a useless woman. Would that be right?
There is a murder trial in Australia involving a man who had been stabbed to death after arguing with another man about evolution and creationism.
Quote:Self-defence claim by man accused of murdering backpacker
(JOHN ROSS, The Scotsman, Wed 4 Jul 2007)
A MAN accused of murdering a Scots backpacker in a caravan park in Australia is to claim in court that he acted in self-defence.
Rudi Boa, 28, from Inverness, died from a stab wound at the Blowering Holiday Park in the town of Tumut, in New South Wales, on 27 January last year.
Alexander York, 31, from Essex, was charged with murder and is now on trial at the supreme court in Wagga Wagga.
****************************************
The prosecution will argue that on the day of Mr Boa's death, he and Ms Brown, from Nairn, had been drinking with York and a local man in the Star Hotel when they got into a disagreement about creationism and evolution.
The Scots, both biomedical scientists, were on the side of evolution, while York argued for the biblical version of events.
*****************************************
The judge, Justice Michael Adams, told the jury of seven men and five women that the case would probably centre on whether York had acted reasonably in self-defence, and he told them they could find him guilty of murder or the lesser charge of manslaughter.
The trial, which is expected to last for three weeks, continues.
wandeljw wrote:There is a murder trial in Australia involving a man who had been stabbed to death after arguing with another man about evolution and creationism.
Quote:Self-defence claim by man accused of murdering backpacker
(JOHN ROSS, The Scotsman, Wed 4 Jul 2007)
A MAN accused of murdering a Scots backpacker in a caravan park in Australia is to claim in court that he acted in self-defence.
Rudi Boa, 28, from Inverness, died from a stab wound at the Blowering Holiday Park in the town of Tumut, in New South Wales, on 27 January last year.
Alexander York, 31, from Essex, was charged with murder and is now on trial at the supreme court in Wagga Wagga.
****************************************
The prosecution will argue that on the day of Mr Boa's death, he and Ms Brown, from Nairn, had been drinking with York and a local man in the Star Hotel when they got into a disagreement about creationism and evolution.
The Scots, both biomedical scientists, were on the side of evolution, while York argued for the biblical version of events.
*****************************************
The judge, Justice Michael Adams, told the jury of seven men and five women that the case would probably centre on whether York had acted reasonably in self-defence, and he told them they could find him guilty of murder or the lesser charge of manslaughter.
The trial, which is expected to last for three weeks, continues.
Thou shalt not kill.......unless defending creationism.
Incident, of any sort, has nothing to do with science or religion.
Someone started a business selling bullets individually engraved with a soldier's name on the basis that there's a superstition in the military that there's a bullet with one's name on it and it was useful to have that bullet in one's own pocket.
I gather 2,000 have been sold in Iraq. That number goes beyond incident and drunken rages in Wagga Wagga and into forms of belief.
How would an anti-IDer describe such behaviour?
Why are you trolling on your own thread wande?
Has the word "evolution" now become a Pavlovian gong to you?
maporsch, You are a card. It also applies to "right to life" people who kill abortion doctors. Nothing like enforcing the laws of the bible, heh?
spendius wrote:How would an anti-IDer describe such behaviour?
Why are you trolling on your own thread wande?
Has the word "evolution" now become a Pavlovian gong to you?
spendi,
I quoted the news item about the murder trial strictly for your benefit. I know you go to your pub every day. This story should be a warning that you should not drink alcohol when debating evolution!
wandeljw wrote:There is a murder trial in Australia involving a man who had been stabbed to death after arguing with another man about evolution and creationism.
What a shock, the whack-job creationist killed the biomedical scientist. I guess he realized it was the only way he could win the debate.
