The End of Evolution Indoctrination in Kansas

Spendius,

You fear that teaching Evolution will cause not a social breakdown but one in morals where students will question Christianity and reject it. This was what I intially thought when I first read your posts.

Now, somewhere along the line, you denied this. Then you made it clear that you were afraid that teaching Evolution would result in some kids taking it on as a philosophy and they would start on the road to Eugenics and Nazism. I replied that it was nonsense and equal to saying that teaching Christianity would ensure we have a huge population of homophobic bigots or that teaching Islam would create a large population of anti-Christian, violent terrorists.

You now say that was not what you were intending.

So why not say what you intended clearly, instead of using made-up names that you failed to define clearly and denying every position I postulate you meant, instead of affirming what position you really do take?

You think your patience with me is wearing thin?

My patience with you is wearing thin and it has more to do with your communication skills than anything else. For example, you refused to define Essdeeoids, and my search for the term only told me that you merely created the term in one post without even explaining what it meant.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1...#1932259

Unless of course, the above post wasn't the first time you used Essdeeoid, but then again, I did use the search function and the above post was the oldest one containing the word.

In that particular post, I see you also have an issue against the Big Bang Theory too, a theory I must add that was created by a religious Vicar that found the then widely accepted Steady State Theory abhorrent.

So, what was your position again?

0 Replies

It is significant to bring up the "Big Bang" canard for another reason. A theory of evolution does not stipulate cosmic origins, and it is irrelevant whether one consider that a deity created the cosmos or not to the persuance of a study of evolutionary theory.

But for the religious demagogues in the United States, it is extremely important to attempt to suggest that a theory of evolution insists upon a "Big Bang," because it is central to their propaganda that teaching a theory of evolution is an intentional assault upon the scriptural tenets of Christianity.

Spendi seems to have absorbed that at some point along the way, as he seems to absorb so much which he apparently does not understand.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

You fear that teaching Evolution will cause not a social breakdown but one in morals where students will question Christianity and reject it.

I don't fear anything apart from physical suffering.

I didn't say teaching evolution.I said teaching evolution exclusively.
There won't be social breakdown.There are other methods of preventing social breakdown as I have said.
The logic of exclusive evolution and exclusive scientific method leads directly to a social life you would not recognise and if we are going there,as it looks like we are doing,it has to be at a steady pace in order to keep the majority of voters on board because otherwise you will get a reaction and if that happens you'll get exclusive ID or exclusive Christianity rammed up your fundaments.

You really must try to see that these extreme positions are useless.The drift is your way.I don't know what you are complaining about.I wouldn't be impatient to go the whole hog until you have seen what it entails and that's a governmental function.

Quote:

For example, you refused to define Essdeeoids,

I did define it.I also explained how it arose.It means the opposite of ID-iot which somebody,timber or fm I think,invented.I even gave the "oid" 3 rhymes and the essdee (SD) is self explanatory.From memory my explanation was in response to your enquiry.

I don't give a damn about the Big Bang.As far as I'm concerned the big bang was what the old man gave the old lady when,in the words of the popular song,"the b*ggers got me."They certainly weren't in a steady state were they now?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

Spendi seems to have absorbed that at some point along the way, as he seems to absorb so much which he apparently does not understand.

Oh but I do understand.I don't dig all this cosmology stuff because I dare understand things in a way that that is designed to repress and distract from.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't give a damn about the Big Bang.As far as I'm concerned the big bang was what the old man gave the old lady when,in the words of the popular song,"the b*ggers got me."They certainly weren't in a steady state were they now?

Maybe Mum might have been.

0 Replies

The attempt to link cosmology and a theory of evolution is certainly designed to distract from the cogent arguments in the contemporary debate--there can be no doubt of that.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I don't fear anything apart from physical suffering.

Yes, but you implied that the suffering would be a result of the exclusive teaching of Evolution, despite the fact that students are being taught Christianity and through school rules are being taught at least the vestigal amounts of respect.

Quote:

I didn't say teaching evolution. I said teaching evolution exclusively.

In that case, you must explain what you mean by teaching evolution exclusively. It is not taught exclusively. It is taught alongside other scientific theories. Students are also taught about religions in religious education, history, mathetmatics, geography, foreign languages and in their foreign languages classes they learn a little bit about foreign culture.

In their social interactions with their peers, they learn how to communicate, how to socialise and through their interaction with teachers they should learn what is anti-social and what must not be done.

No one here wants only evolution be taught. They merely want Creationism and ID not to be taught. That is only two things, compared to a wealth of other experience and lessons in school.

Quote:

You really must try to see that these extreme positions are useless.

Your view is the extreme position. I have never argued that only Evolution should be taught.

Quote:

The drift is your way.

The drift is not my way. The drift is towards Creationism and ID being included in science lessons. This is not what I want. Furthermore, have you noticed the number of people that have stopped doing hard sciences? It has increased.

To argue that the drift is going my way is ridiculous.

Quote:

I don't know what you are complaining about.

And that is what I've been saying to you for a long time. You have even commented not he fact that I don't know what you are complaining about, but have not once made your position crystal clear, until recently of course.

I still don't understand your position, because it makes no logical sense to me.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

I still don't understand your position, because it makes no logical sense to me.

I'm aware of that.It makes,however,no difference to my position which is not based on any personal factors.

If you became a subscriber to VIZ magazine or better still found some copies of ZIT on ebay you might get an idea of what logical sense looks like and evolution theory in the nearly raw.

Or take a look at the volume of laws and regulations in existence which are obviously not needed if everybody would behave as decently and morally as you obviously do seemingly without knowing why.My solicitor's office has two walls of them.They are not weather.They have been constructed out of a compromise between Christian theology and raw expedience. Evolution is the latter exclusively.

The rest of your post is pure teleology and,as is usual with such things,self-serving.

I could offer other explanations to your conclusions.
You use words much to casually.

Check my post on "that specific classroom" contrasted with the abstract "classrooms".The latter is a phrase over which it is easy to posture and make grandiose claims.

0 Replies

If you think my posts are self-serving, then you clearly do not know me nor get the proper jist of what I'm getting at.

I am stating that your issues are best addressed in a separate thread about ethics.

This isn't about Evolution. It's about the teaching of ethics, which can be conducted in addition to the teaching of science or in a separate ethics class.

Taught either way, you get what you want, students being taught to be morally righteous and not to go overboard with applying evolution to everything.

After all, applying evolution to every aspect of life is like applying the theory of gravity or the theory of entropy to everything in life. It's nonsensical.

That is why I believe your position is nonsensical, because you're arguing against a nonsensical issue that can be easily shot down.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

If you think my posts are self-serving, then you clearly do not know me nor get the proper jist of what I'm getting at.

Earlier Wolf wrote-

Quote:

The drift is not my way. The drift is towards Creationism and ID being included in science lessons. This is not what I want. Furthermore, have you noticed the number of people that have stopped doing hard sciences? It has increased.

By placing the idea that there's a drift towards ID in science lessons,which I doubt anyway, in the same paragraph with the notion,which I gather is true,that the number doing hard sciences has decreased you obviously intend to connect them causally.

There may well be other reasons such as the difficulty of the hard sciences and the salary levels of alternative and easier subjects.Governmental actions in closing down some scientific educational establishments (usually physics department) in order to concentrate funds into those capable of modern science or a general perception that science is "uncool" i.e.unfashionable.

All those reasons,and there may be others are a more likely explanation than the asserted drift towards ID in science lessons.

I'm saying you teleologised to suit your argument and that is self-serving.The assertion serves the same function.

Quote:

Taught either way, you get what you want, students being taught to be morally righteous and not to go overboard with applying evolution to everything.

You mean I presume that ID-iots can have a valid say in which case they are not idiots.
The failure to answer my question about teaching evolution and "belief" in the same school is the cause of this irenics and the subsequent infighting and discrediting of the teachers,the school and the educational system.
Why is applying evolution to everything going "overboard"? You can't go picking and choosing with scientific principles. If some aspects of evolutionary theory disturb your sensibilities so what?

Quote:

After all, applying evolution to every aspect of life is like applying the theory of gravity or the theory of entropy to everything in life. It's nonsensical.

Why?I certainly apply the theory of gravity to every aspect of my life and I'm inclined to do the same with the entropy idea as well.

Quote:

because you're arguing against a nonsensical issue that can be easily shot down.

That does look like nonsense to me.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

farmerman wrote:
Brandon say
Quote:
attempts to legislate that pi is exactly 3, etc.

tell me that was only a joke reported in THE ONION. ?

'fraid not.

Back in the 1890s, there was an attempt in Tennessee to legislate that pi equals three. The Tennessee House passed the bill unanimously, but it later died in the Senate. So that part is real.

But there is also an urban legend, presumably inspired by this true story, that replaces Tennessee with Alabama and the 1890s with the 1990s. It quickly spread across the internet -- but unlike its 19th century precursor, it's fiction. Thus, Farmerman's suspicion about it being an Onion hoax had some merit.

Source: Snopes.com.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

By placing the idea that there's a drift towards ID in science lessons,which I doubt anyway, in the same paragraph with the notion,which I gather is true,that the number doing hard sciences has decreased you obviously intend to connect them causally.

In the sense that I frown on both.

Quote:

All those reasons,and there may be others are a more likely explanation than the asserted drift towards ID in science lessons.

Which is why the teaching of Evolution must be preserved, not just preserved, but ensured that it teaches real scientific thinking.

Quote:

I'm saying you teleologised to suit your argument and that is self-serving.The assertion serves the same function.

Spendi, I have no idea what teleologising means, let alone have the capability of deliberately doing it to suit my argument.

Quote:

Quote:
Taught either way, you get what you want, students being taught to be morally righteous and not to go overboard with applying evolution to everything.

You mean I presume that ID-iots can have a valid say in which case they are not idiots.

No, because ID has nothing to do with morals or ethics. It is presenting a false view and unscientific view to the students as truth. ID is not equal to ethics. It may be equal to Christian theology, but that has nothing to do with science. Nothing, absolutely nothing. Ethics and Christian theology are two different things.

Quote:

The failure to answer my question about teaching evolution and "belief" in the same school is the cause of this irenics and the subsequent infighting and discrediting of the teachers,the school and the educational system.

Irenics as in promoting peace? infighting and discrediting of the teachers?

I personally don't think it will happen and cannot see a reason why it should happen. Unless you of course, the students are as stupid as you imply they are.

Quote:

Why is applying evolution to everything going "overboard"? You can't go picking and choosing with scientific principles. If some aspects of evolutionary theory disturb your sensibilities so what?

I don't pick and choose my scientific principles. I don't apply scientific theories to everything willy-nilly underneath the Sun. That is your biggest presumption, that we must apply scientific principles to everything.

I don't apply evolution to how I live, because as far as I'm concerned there is no need. Ever heard of natural selection? It's called natural for a reason, you know. Speeding evolution up is hubris and wrong. Look at what the Nazis did. Students are taught that the Nazis were wrong and the Nazis in history classes are painted as evil.

Let things happen the way they should, I say, without direct conscious interference. We must not consciously select against those that are inferior. There is no need. Allow them to breed, should they wish. Whatever genes they do have that really are inferior will be naturally bred out of the gene pool without any need for us to intercede.

Evolution happens naturally. Animals don't deliberately go out of their way to start eugenics programs. We, not since the Nazis anyway, have not done anything like that.

Quote:

Quote:
After all, applying evolution to every aspect of life is like applying the theory of gravity or the theory of entropy to everything in life. It's nonsensical.

Why?I certainly apply the theory of gravity to every aspect of my life and I'm inclined to do the same with the entropy idea as well.

Very well. Then you shouldn't complain about infighting and and discrediting of the teachers, schools and education system. Entropy states that things should go that way, if you apply it to that particular aspect of our life, that is.

0 Replies

Wolf-

I thought you were trying to imply that the drift towards the idea of a Supreme Being in schools,assuming it is happening,is the cause in the reduction of the number of science students.

Maybe it is one cause.I suggested three others.

Teleologising is when you pick out a cause and suggest,or affirm,that it is THE cause.It happens all the time.Somebody who knows he's doing it but does it just the same is being cynical.The usual,more innocent,use of it is because it is the only explanation the person knows.
Both are self-serving.

e.g.A wife runs off with the gardner.The deserted bloke says she did it because she's a slag.That saves him from facing up to the possibilty that he failed her.And many variations.

Science is about examining every potential cause and not jumping on to the first plausible explanation.As say thinking the sun goes round the earth because it looks like it does.Or that matter is not vibrating because it doesn't feel like it is.

Of course,if you can make money out of
the first plausible explanation,the science of economics says "Teleologise!Teleologise!Teleologise!" See Spanish real-estate sales techniques.See any sales techniques for that matter. Cherished ideas can be sold too.

You can teleologise without knowing-it's dead easy.Everybody I know does it all the time. I find it amusing these days.Swift used it in his irony.

It's worth looking into.

I'll look at the rest later.There's a big match on and I watch how sports evolve to see which gets naturally selected as top dog by twanging something in the mass psyche best. Media is feminine to it's very core.It seeks to please.

0 Replies

I met a woman this weekend -- she's about 62 or 63 -- and she asked me if when I was in late elementary/early high school if my classmates laughed at the Scopes Trial and how primitive the beliefs of the creationists were.

I said yes.

She said why have backslid?

0 Replies

The beliefs of the non-creationists lasted about,or so I gather,2 or 4,depending on who you believe,million and nine hundred and ninety five thousand years.After that it took off.

I'll bet those guys in the cave paintings wished they had thought of creationism.I've seen lions hunting with their methods.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Wolf-

I thought you were trying to imply that the drift towards the idea of a Supreme Being in schools,assuming it is happening,is the cause in the reduction of the number of science students.

Oh no, no. I was implying that the reduction in people understanding in science, may help students think using a Supreme Being as an explanation is good science. God is not a God of the Gaps. He is not there so you can plug up holes in your scientific theories, which is what ID-proponents are doing. God is not a plug.

Oh, and thank you for the explanation of teleologising.

Quote:

Science is about examining every potential cause and not jumping on to the first plausible explanation.As say thinking the sun goes round the earth because it looks like it does.Or that matter is not vibrating because it doesn't feel like it is.

That is why ID is not good. It is jumping on a plausible explanation that cannot be explained through science.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

Oh no, no. I was implying that the reduction in people understanding in science, may help students think using a Supreme Being as an explanation is good science.

I would say-may help students to think of the possibility that using a Supreme Being as an explanation of the world is good science is maybe worth considering.

I'd then agree."Think" was the difficulty.

The ones who eventually reject that possibility might have a little more respect for those who don't reject it if they have at least given it some thought. The simple fact that they show so much contempt instead tells me that they haven't considered it. They damn well know it's all a load of money-wheedling,hocus-pocus,superstitious,avalanches of bullshit invented out of nothing in order to keep the shivering masses hard at it to pile up the banqueting table at the nunnery do on Walpurgis night. Mugs wanted.

They can't say it as good as that but that's what they'd like to say. They don't like to think of themselves as mugs. The only trouble is that a society of 290 million has to have mugs and I'd rather be a mug under our Christian tradition than take the risk of being one under any system they can offer which is why they won't offer one.

Obviously Wolf-ID is a teleological explanation but its opponents can't knock it out in the asymptote of reducible complexity. It took them 300 years to stop women flying around the night sky on broomsticks.Most of them I mean.I still see the odd one occasionally.

You could work that explanation of teleology up a bit.It was just broad brush.Might be okay for science students to come at it that way.But it's too fast for students as it is.

Many a young man has lost a lovely bride because he jumped to the conclusion that he hated her for not turning up when the reason she hadn't was that she'd rescued a lost kitten from up a tree and gone looking for its mother and had forgotten his mobile phone number.Which is a pity.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I would say-may help students to think of the possibility that using a Supreme Being as an explanation of the world is good science is maybe worth considering.

The problem is, that it's not. That is the most ridiculous thing you've said so far. If that is the case, then students can say an Invisible Pink Unicorn is responsible for some of the things we know about or maybe a slice of Sentient Holy Pizza. Actually, no, pizza would probably be the devil...

I cannot really respond to the rest, because, well, there's nothing to respond to.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

I cannot really respond to the rest, because, well, there's nothing to respond to.

Obviously.All assertions are obviously true at the moment the thought is articulated in the very limited field which give rise to them.

And I already know that no serious thought has been given to the physiognomy of a society with no beliefs so I don't really expect even a simple attempt to describe it.There would only be one.We are not even being asked to buy a fantasy.All it is is "not this".

0 Replies

Quote:

The attempt to link cosmology and a theory of evolution is certainly designed to distract from the cogent arguments in the contemporary debate--there can be no doubt of that.

Cosmic Evolution From Big Bang to Humankind (Tufts University) http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html

Quote:

This multimedia site provided by the Wright Centre for Science Education details the cosmic evolution of the Universe over the past 12 billion years and is based on an update of the textbook 'Universe: an Evolutionary Approach to Astronomy' by Eric Chaisson, originally published in 1968 by Prentice Hall. The site is divided into the following seven sections: particulate, galactic, stellar, planetary, chemical, biological and cultural. Each of these sections is explained in detail with movies, images and extensive text. The entire history of the Universe is covered from the birth of our Universe to the evolution of humankind.

Misconceptions About the Big Bang (Scientific American.com) http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147

Quote:

The expansion of the universe may be the most important fact we have ever discovered about our origins. You would not be reading this article if the universe had not expanded. Human beings would not exist......Like Darwinian evolution, cosmic expansion provides the context within which simple structures form and develop over time into complex structures. Without evolution and expansion, modern biology and cosmology make little sense....

It would appear that there is plenty of intertwining of the ideas by proponents of evolution, as well.

0 Replies

The End of Evolution Indoctrination in Kansas

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know