High school biology teachers reluctant to endorse evolution in class

The teachers should reconsider their decisions. Each theory explaining how we "got here" should be available to every student so that they have a broad based understanding of human intellect as it relates to the existence of humans, unverse and how we arrived here for that matter!

Considerable research suggests that supporters of evolution, scientific methods, and reason itself are losing battles in America's classrooms

So what's the point here. Do we want to take something we don't understand and espouse it as gospel truth, just like we do for global warming? Enough spent on preaching what we don't understand.

First of all, there is no evidence that evolution occurred,

Berkman and Plutzer found that about 13 percent of biology teachers "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light." Many of these teachers typically rejected the possibility that scientific methods can shed light on the origin of the species, and considered both evolution and creationism as belief systems that cannot be fully proven or discredited.

Yeah, and let's start teaching astrology too. And what about ancient Greek ideas about the creation of the universe? Let's teach everything as if it might be true, even though we know it's not...

Yeah, and let's start teaching astrology too. And what about ancient Greek ideas about the creation of the universe? Let's teach everything as if it might be true, even though we know it's not...

All of those courses are taught at universities.

I remember how my high school biology/chemistry teacher, a devout catholic, used to teach us as much as possible and with great passion about how humans and every other living thing evolved from common ancestors.
Since I attended a christian high school and even our religion teachers had no problem with evolution (only one fanatic who believed Harry Potter was the work of the Devil, I simply cannot understand how US teachers denounce evolution as something that opposes their christian beleif. This goes beyond any reason.

These teachers are not identified in this article as being idiots or 'extremists' but intelligent DOUBTERS. They need no more training, or instruction, but a place to be heard...what are their doubts and questions. I am sure intelligent evolutionists CAN answer and SHOULD but don't expect it all to just go away or for them to just follow blindly!

the cautious 60 percent fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry, undermine the authority of established experts

First of all, there is no evidence that evolution occurred, so how can teachers defend it? It would appear that the teachers are smart enough to recognize that. Scientific methods, if applied, can shed light on the fact that evolution is just a faith held by those who refuse to believe the truth. Sound science backs the biblical account.
It is absurd that anyone could believe that living beings somehow evolved, from non-living elements, by random chance, given any amount of time.

Yeah, and let's start teaching astrology too. And what about ancient Greek ideas about the creation of the universe? Let's teach everything as if it might be true, even though we know it's not...

All of those courses are taught at universities.

Yeah. In a course about ancient works of fiction, not in science class.

I agree, but evolution has been proven in real time with bacteria (people please do not use virii because they are tachnecly not "alive.") and isn't this a debate that is teaching us???...

I think it is refreshing that most teachers refuse to blindly teach the official state religion. It is always better to let students make determination on what constitutes reality after they have been exposed to multiple possibilities.

It is never good to blindly swallow and regurgitate the state's propaganda.

Love progressives. They will fire anyone who does not believe the way progressives believe they should believe....

So what's the point here. Do we want to take something we don't understand and espouse it as gospel truth, just like we do for global warming?....

I agree that creationism has NO place in public school, I disagree that ID doesn't. Evolution and ID need not be mutually exclusive however.

I believe in the big bang, I also believe in a supernaturally created universe. I see no contradiction. I look at ID and evolution the same way.

These teachers "tell students it does not matter if they really 'believe' in evolution, so long as they know it for the test," Berkman and Plutzer said.
...
This is unfortunate, the researchers said, because "this approach tells students that well established concepts can be debated in the same way we debate personal opinions."

These teachers are not identified in this article as being idiots or 'extremists' but intelligent DOUBTERS.

Saying it's 100% proven is a lie and turns people off, while watering it down is detrimental to our understanding of how biology works. So, just tell it like it is!

Or the teacher could say "It is useful to understand the theory of evolution, therefore we will spend some time studying it. As with all theories, your acceptance and/or belief is not required or expected. Theories are models which are used as long as they prove useful."

explain antibiotic resistance. Try not to look to stupid when you do it. ... Evolution is a fact, not just a theory.

Try not to look to stupid when you do it.

It's not useful, it's essential. Does your child want to be a doctor, a chemist, a biologist, an engineer? All based in part or in whole on evolution. All work. All sustain our society.

There is no debate, there is no controversy. Evolution is a fact.

explain antibiotic resistance. Try not to look to stupid when you do it. ... Evolution is a fact, not just a theory.

Breeding for traits is not evolution. We breed fast horses and work horses. They have varied traits but remain horses. We breed hundreds of varieties of dogs, but they are all dogs. Neither represents evolution -- they are just breeding for traits.

Selective breeding works for single celled organisms as well as with horses, dogs, plants, etc.

I keep forgetting I am insulting your religion when I fail to express adoration for Naturalism. You are welcome to put your faith in a theory. Sorry I upset you.

(A doctor is not required to believe in evolution either. He doesn't evolve patients well, he treats them with various interventions which have shown an ability to improve their situation.)

Introduction of antibiotics creates a hostile environment where bacteria without the ability to resist, die. The survivng bacteria reproduce. The next generation, with resistance, survive, passing it on to the third generation, eventually all subsequent generations are immune.

Exactly. Breeding for traits.

A staphylococcus bacteria which is methicillin resistant is still a staphylococcus bacteria.

I am not conviced that it is illegal to teach creation in the public school classroom.

Watch the movie "Expelled".

If only there was proof for evolution, there might be a reason to believe in it.

I am not conviced that it is illegal to teach creation in the public school classroom. School boards and teachers are just afraid of paying legal expenses to fight the ACLU. So they voluntarily cave in, and back away in many cases.

You are correct that the courts have abrogated the first amendment, which specifically prohibits the federal government from making laws respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. As a legal and constitutional issue, the government is prohibited from making it illegal to express any religion.

I am not conviced that it is illegal to teach creation in the public school classroom.

If only there was proof for evolution, there might be a reason to believe in it.

Skeptic_Heretic,

Your error is not that you have faith in your evolution theory

but that you seek to compel all other men to believe as you believe.

You are welcome to your religion. You are not welcome to compel others to believe as you do.

You're also not allowed to use taxes to fund religious teachings.

There is no debate, there is no controversy. Evolution is a fact.

I don't believe evolution...

That is not in the constitution. Read the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Making a law discriminating against a religion violates the first amendment.

Inconsistent. You do believe evolution

Inconsistent. You do believe evolution and you seek to make others believe as you do. Your subsequent disclaimer is ingenuous.

So if by law I have to pay taxes to fund public schools, and you want another law allowing the teaching of creationism in public schools, that's not just one, but two laws that are "respecting the establishment of religion".

If you cannot provide a scientific basis for creationism, it cannot be taught in a SCIENCE class.

You will doubtless note that I have already stated that there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to fund schools.

Only you are advocating laws to control religious expression. I have noted repeatedly that there is no constitutional authority for such laws.

Many things have been taught in many science classes which have subsequently been invalidated.

You say my "subsequent disclaimer is disingenuous".

So tell me why.

What about evolution can I not demonstrate.

Well, when you say you believe on thing, and then you say you believe the exact opposite, you have been disingenuous.

No one has been able to demonstrate evolution.

Do you intend to say that you have done what no one else has been able to do?

What new creature have you developed through evolutionary processes?

You say you can demonstrate evolution. Go do that then return here with your notes and the new creature you evolved.

I neither believe or dis-believe in evolution. It has not been adequately demonstrated, but it could still be a valid model.)

OK. So you cannot demonstrate evolution. As I noted, no one has done that.

Skeptic_Heretic,

I won't continue to watch your Youtube videos.

This is a written forum and you need to write if you want me to listen.

You want to demonstrate evolution, do so. Youtube videos, computer simulations, animation, restatement of the theory of evolution are not demonstrations.

You cannot demonstrate it. No one has and you would doubtless be in line for the Nobel prize if you could demonstrate it.

Your error is not that you have faith in your evolution theory, but that you seek to compel all other men to believe as you believe.

You are welcome to your religion. You are not welcome to compel others to believe as you do.

Your error is that you confuse science - the gathering of knowledge by the use of falsifiable statements - with religion which does not know the concept of falsifiability.

You cannot demonstrate it. No one has and you would doubtless be in line for the Nobel prize if you could demonstrate it.

Your error is that you confuse science - the gathering of knowledge by the use of falsifiable statements - with religion which does not know the concept of falsifiability.

Why do you make false statements about me? I know what science is and I respect it. I have never tried to equate religion with science, faith with evidence.

Your error is not that you have faith in your evolution theory, but that you seek to compel all other men to believe as you believe.

If I say a theory is a theory, how have I offended you?

Progressives have been in control of teaching our kids for the last 30+ years and have been forcing kids to recite evolution for the last 30 years. If kids are actually taught to think, then science education will once again flourish in the US.

For those that think that evolution is a theory - you neither understand the scientific facts that are well-founded, and for which the basic premise goes unchallenged by the scientific community, nor do you understand what science is.

SH doesnt know squat about science. He doesnt believe that a person is formed when sperm and egg unite. That is one piece of science that is settled except for the crazy leftists.

Interesting that people say that science education is poor in the US. Progressives have been in control of teaching our kids for the last 30+ years and have been forcing kids to recite evolution for the last 30 years. If kids are actually taught to think, then science education will once again flourish in the US.

Perhaps you need to learn what a theory is. I have been to college and studied biology (including evolution theory). I understand what science is and I understand what a theory is.

A gray gull, a white gull and a spotted gull are all gulls.

So let me get this straight, they don't believe in evolution, but they accept what some guy who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago and who may or may not have been the son of an invisible god who we also have never seen in any kind of direct form we can see says in a book written by people who may or may not have ever actually met him.

SH doesnt know squat about science. He doesnt believe that a person is formed when sperm and egg unite. That is one piece of science that is settled except for the crazy leftists.

Interesting that people say that science education is poor in the US. Progressives have been in control of teaching our kids for the last 30+ years and have been forcing kids to recite evolution for the last 30 years. If kids are actually taught to think, then science education will once again flourish in the US.

This is unfortunate, the researchers said, because "this approach tells students that well established concepts can be debated in the same way we debate personal opinions."

I thought science was based on fact! So why is evolution even mentioned? Its never been proven! And they been trying for countless years. The only things that should be taught in science are proven facts. Not crazy theory that make no sense even to high school kids.

Threads like this make me feel SO lucky that I never had a religious upbringing.

Threads like this make me feel SO lucky that I never had a religious upbringing.

That's a bit imprecise. Generally, a religious upbringing does not necessarily imply anti-scientific education.

Wow i did not know their were so many dumb "educated" people here. Its call the THEORY of evolution because its NEVER BEEN PROVEN ACCURATE! AND NO SOLID PROOF.

FloydPinkerton- theory (n.) A doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice; hypothesis; speculation.

^ so the dictionary is wrong? If it is where can i find where you got your definition from?

I see evolutionary theory divided into two distinct areas:
1. Common Descent
2. The origin of life

the fact of adaptive evolution is HERE!

Our world and all that live on it ADAPT in deed

The theory of evolution needs patching BADLY

Every couple of months we find something else that changes what we know or thought we knew about evolution

..it is not, NOT a law (like gravity) yet, yet.

Further, evolution NEVER ever gets explained as the CAUSE for everything

) but, like all beings is itself guided or controlled by terrestrial factors,

It is not 'THE source' it is just, well, a fine theory that needs more bones in it's skeleton...!

'nuff said.

creationism MAY not be, EVER completely discredited

SINCE THEY CAN BE ultimately, possibly, SHOWN TO BE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS working on the same side!!!

Don't be angry at us creationists because we like our science to be based on fact not a crazy theory that will never be proven accurate.

so wait, objecting to a theory is somehow undermining "reason" itself?

There's also something called "intuition" wherin someone knows something is wrong, even if they can't personally prove it.

Forcing someone to teach something they do not believe violates the first ammendment too

Forbidding students to teach creationism

or to ask questions related to creation also violates the first ammendment.

Moreover, the ammendment restricts CONGRESS from making a "state religion"

. It says nothing about government employees having personal oppinions.

the whole lot of you make me sick.

In academia, these ill-formed gross attempts of argument are comical at best

SO, all of you without degrees, or minds to use the ones you have.

i had fun laughing at you

your just as dumb for even concidering arguing with someone that calls into question "evo"..what are you thinking?

publications that support your claims??

BUT government employees are NOT allowed to force their religion on others while doing their government job.

BUT government employees are NOT allowed to force their religion on others while doing their government job.

Define "force". The converse is also true and the thing the founders of this country were actually concerned with...

Indoctrination through the educational system of belief rather than theory would be one.

Define "force".

The converse is also true and the thing the founders of this country were actually concerned with...

Trapped in a classroom with an authority figure. Why did you bother to ask?

Can't help it if you don't like public education.

As long as it exists the teachers within the public education system are beholden to the Constitutional limit of NOT establishing their religion with government money.

The Dover trial agreed with me on this. That was a REAGAN appointee by the way.

Indoctrination through the educational system of belief rather than theory would be one.

Bullshit, you can't force someone to believe something. Try again.

I agree that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools, but if they did I sure as hell am not going to girl-up and call it FORCE. What a crock of shit.

When I can fail you out of school and ruin your potential career and academic options I can make you do jsut about anything I want.

I would love to debate with you guys all day long. However i have learned that its a waste of time to debate evolution with people who need it to be true to rationalize their own life style.

When I can fail you out of school and ruin your potential career and academic options I can make you do jsut about anything I want.

Including disavowing my religious beliefs in favor of what you believe?

Isn't there something in the constitution about THAT one too?

That shit cuts both ways SH ;-) and that's the essence of my point

When I can fail you out of school and ruin your potential career and academic options I can make you do jsut about anything I want.

Including disavowing my religious beliefs in favor of what you believe?

Isn't there something in the constitution about THAT one too?

No. The school has no stance on your religion. It merely teaches science. Science is not a religion. If your religion conflicts with science then that would be your problem, not the problem of science, or of science teachers.

The state is not allowed to create a mandated religion, nor are they allowed to enact laws that create unlawful discrimination.

But science isn't a religion, it is a body of knowledge. Religion isn't a body of knowledge, it is a school of philosophical thought.

No, the constitution does not protect one from being wrong.

Including disavowing my religious beliefs in favor of what you believe?

Including disavowing my religious beliefs in favor of what you believe?

No. The school has no stance on your religion. It merely teaches science. Science is not a religion. If your religion conflicts with science then that would be your problem, not the problem of science, or of science teachers.

Totally irrelevant to my point, and a piss poor cop out to boot.

That I'm wrong is your opinion, and the constitution most, and civil rights act most certainly DO protect me from your opinion.

What I'm saying is that, in the end, it should not be up to anyone but the parents of the kids what they are taught about matters like this.

Hopefully you all haven't forgotten that I'm NOT a creationist, that I DON'T believe that creationism should be taught in school.

What I'm saying is that, in the end, it should not be up to anyone but the parents of the kids what they are taught about matters like this. If we end up a backwards ass ignorant society because of it...so be it.

To be frank however, we're ending up a backwards ass ignorant society WITH secular education...so all these slippery slope arguments are a little silly.

We're 34th in education not because of what we refuse to teach. We're 34th because we don't refuse to teach nonsense things.

The teaching of religion does not belong in a science class. Teaching of religion belongs in a church, a church-oriented school, in the home or in a religious studies class.

They don't view one as science and the other as religion...GET IT?

That's what you otherwise intelligent idiots refuse to grasp....that's YOUR opinion. They don't view one as science and the other as religion...GET IT?

You're still not getting it. This isn't an argument you're going to win with logic, and clever analogies.

You seem to think that tax dollars are more "yours" than "theirs"....

MM,

I'm your kid's teacher. Tomorrow we are learning the advantages of Satanism and the good it can do for society. Next, for physics class, I will lecture on how Aether Theory is equally correct to the standard model. After that, I will show them the pleasure of adult/child physical love and how it's better than waiting for the completion of physical development.

They don't view one as science and the other as religion...

What I'm saying is that, in the end, it should not be up to anyone but the parents of the kids what they are taught about matters like this. If we end up a backwards ass ignorant society because of it...so be it.

I strongly disagree. Education is compulsory in modern society regardless of the wish of the parents.

They don't view one as science and the other as religion...

If I don't view robbing a bank as a criminal act it doesn't help me either.
It's not their job to define science and it's not my job to define whether robbing a bank is legal. What a pity.

We're 34th in education not because of what we refuse to teach. We're 34th because we don't refuse to teach nonsense things.

Bullshit. We're 34th because we refuse to teach...period...

I sincerely hope that someday you find yourself living in a theocracy and you find that you have no control over what is being taught to your children...or to children in general. It might force you to understand the inherent problems with force.

It's all fine and dandy to be in favor of compulsory education against the wishes of parents...as long as you agree with the curriculum.

You're still not getting it. This isn't an argument you're going to win with logic, and clever analogies.

You're still not getting it. This isn't an argument you're going to win with logic, and clever analogies.

And the only reason why that is the case is because as the opponent, you're acting wholly illogically.

That you used a metaphor comparing a criminal act

to parents determining what their children are taught just shows that...well, you're an idiot.

But a lot of us already knew that...

@Modernmystic: I think your point is moot. You say you cannot force a child to learn something, and you have been proven right. It does not mean teachers should not try.

It's obvious that you cannot teach children anything that their parents force their children to remain ignorant about.

However, facts are facts, and theories are a cumulation of those facts, so theories should continue to be taught regardless of which mystical traditions a child's family subscribes to.

However, let us say that at some point schools teach that there is no God. At what point do we as parents get to draw the line...some of you seem to think there is no line...

You're still not getting it. This isn't an argument you're going to win with logic, and clever analogies.

And the only reason why that is the case is because as the opponent, you're acting wholly illogically.

No SH, the reason is that not every human condition can be broken down into 1's and 0's. You should know better...

I agree with most of this too. However, let us say that at some point schools teach that there is no God. At what point do we as parents get to draw the line...some of you seem to think there is no line...

According to progressives, only the state knows what truth is, and only the truth that progressives believe in can be taught or believed.

If you dare question progressive belief or don't whole heartedly believe it, you are not fit to teach, preach, doctor, print, nurse, police, administer, judge, politic, etc.

That's three posts saying the exact same thing in this thread. Never once returning a single response; never once supporting any claim with fact. You sir, could have a career ahead of you in politics.

However, let us say that at some point schools teach that there is no God. At what point do we as parents get to draw the line...some of you seem to think there is no line...

The line has tobe drawn between school and church. They have to be separated. No religion in school...

The line has tobe drawn between school and church. They have to be separated. No religion in school...

I know our constitution does not agree with you, but when you advocate ignoring the basis of our law, you advocate anarchy. We do not need anarchy.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now notice the part about congress making no law and the part about not prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Before you comment again, please read it.

No, You need to read it again and again until you understand it. Start with the meaning of "no law". Get help if necessary. It is an important concept.

You're still not getting it. This isn't an argument you're going to win with logic, and clever analogies.

And the only reason why that is the case is because as the opponent, you're acting wholly illogically.

No SH, the reason is that not every human condition can be broken down into 1's and 0's. You should know better...

Every aspect of us can be broken down into a complex matrix of yeses and nos. Yes I want, no I do not want.

That you can't see that is very odd.

The amendment doesn't simply provide freedom of religion. It provides freedom FROM religion. If you're really interested in the topic, I'd suggest you take some classes on Constitutional law.

no creationism in science class unless you can establish a scientific basis, which you can't.

That you can't see that yeses and nos don't always add up to a logical result when it comes to human beings is blatantly obvious.

I'd have to say that you don't understand that is odd as well. That you tried to use that BS evasion of my obvious point is asinine.

Sorry I challenged you. You apparently cannot understand simple concepts. That is why I .suggested you get help.

However, let us say that at some point schools teach that there is no God. At what point do we as parents get to draw the line...some of you seem to think there is no line...

The line has tobe drawn between school and church. They have to be separated. No religion in school, no science in church.
And, of course, school is mandatory, church is optional.

So, you can't say anything about religion in school? Careful...

There is in fact no such visible line. I dare you people to cross it all the same.

Bad decisions come from a lack of knowledge, or an inability to identify reality.

No, you simply can't teach religion as fact.

So then we'll cancel english class and teach the Quran, only, like Pakistan does. That ok with you? After all, you're telling us that's completely fine.

Then in science we'll have a lab where we try to make a woman out of the ribs of male students. Sound good? No?

No, you simply can't teach religion as fact.

Of course you can teach facts about religion. You learned nothing about religion in school?

No, in fact I'm telling you it's completely fine to teach creationism. What are you so afraid of if evolution is such a sound theory? I'm not afraid of creationism, only a fucking idiot would be.

That would be a good way to invalidate the theory wouldn't it?

Blatantly false. It provides freedom OF religion. It prohibits the state from setting up a church and then banning all other religions or using tax money to support the church directly. This is why the puritans came to the country.

We're going to devote an entire year of medical school to Phrenology and Homeopathy. Happy with that? Happy paying for it?

There's no reason to do it, beyond that, it's rather gruesome, no?

No, in fact I'm telling you it's completely fine to teach creationism. What are you so afraid of if evolution is such a sound theory? I'm not afraid of creationism, only a fucking idiot would be.

Mystic,

Do you not realize that you're advocating that we waste money, hire idiot teachers, and unleash them on our most impressionable and vulnerable minds?

What exactly is the goal of your proposal if not to make people stupid through a Laissez Faire attitude about education?

Neither you or I pay for medical school unless we're attending AFAIK. Try again.

No more gruesome than cutting up pigs or frogs.

We'd demonstrate that you can't make women out of ribs.

This cuts to my WHOLE point. You can't force someone to REASON at the point of a gun, the two are antithetical. You CAN do it by persuasion.

So what? We piss away so much money on more idiotic things than that every single day in this country. Besides it's not YOUR money, or MY money SH...it's OUR money. That "our" includes people who want their kids taught thus and so...therefore I could give a shit less what YOU think is a waste of money in this instance since we're not talking about YOUR money.

You certainly will pay for it if he ends up
being your doctor.

So surgically removing the rib of a male classmate, and attempting to whittle it into a woman is not more gruesome than dissecting a pig? What are you talking about?

Ok, well here's what you're suggesting. You're suggesting something akin to teaching the "Stork Theory" of reproduction in sex ed classes. Do you see the danger in that?

The world needs garbagemen too, but they don't need creationists

Is that the argument you'd like to use for promoting the healthcare laws?

If you want to teach your kids stupid things, feel free. Don't make it mandated that mine are taught stupid things.

Education is based on knowledge. Knowledge is demonstrable. Creationism/Spontaneous Generation/Intelligent Design is not demonstrable, meaning it is not teachable, meaning IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED EDUCATION. Do you disagree?

He wouldn't be my doctor. Getting the point now?

Ok, well here's what you're suggesting. You're suggesting something akin to teaching the "Stork Theory" of reproduction in sex ed classes. Do you see the danger in that?

None whatsoever. It's idiocy, idiocy goes away. If it didn't we'd still be using stone knives and bearskins.

Simple as that. I'm not saying I consider creationism education, I'm saying it doesn't matter what I think on that issue.

"I'm not saying I consider creationism education, I'm saying it doesn't matter what I think on that issue.

idiocy goes away

When you make an adjustment to a private institution, then only the people from that institution are affected. When you make a change to public education, everyone is affected. In short, there would be no doctor you would see under that hypothetical.

You're no longer worth talking to on this topic.

Yes, and it doesn't matter what I think it is either. Creationism isn't knowledge, therefore it isn't a subject of education by objective definition. So your "let them eat cake attitude" is irrelevant.

"I'm not saying I consider creationism education, I'm saying it doesn't matter what I think on that issue.

So, a hundred posts later it doesn't matter what you or anyone thinks - but the rest of us had to endure this tit-for-tat? If it doesn't matter, then why the argument?

You can't demonstrate abiogenesis. Do we not teach that?

You can't demonstrate abiogenesis. Do we not teach that?

No, actually we do not. Only proven theories are teached in schools, abiogenesis is not proven. Do you get it now?

Theories of abiogenesis ARE taught. I remember in biology class they said it was "lightning" that did it.

I'm saying it's as stupid to get freaked out by teaching creationism in school as it is to believe in it.

Theories of abiogenesis ARE taught. I remember in biology class they said it was "lightning" that did it. I never heard the possibility of an intelligent creator, God, Aliens or otherwise. No alternate theories at all.

You mean they taught you the Miller-Urey experiment...

To protect overt misinformation in a school system because you're unwilling to impinge on an idiot's wish to have their children also be idiots shows your lack of thought on the matter. This is my final statement on the topic.

The fact that you're willing to trample on someone's rights because you think they're an "idiot" shows your stripes of fascism on the matter.

The fact that you're willing to trample on someone's rights because you think they're an "idiot" shows your stripes of fascism on the matter.

What rights? Parents do not have any right to deny their children education.

What's the word for someone who does not believe in the value of progress?

What's the word for someone who does not believe in the value of progress?

Fundamentalist, Regressivist, luddite, primitivist, usually nothing good.

What's the word for someone who doesn't believe in the value of freedom?

What's the word for someone who doesn't believe in the value of freedom?

There's no term for that. Maybe Existentialist, but that's a stretch. I'll go with Determinist.

But this depends on which freedom you're talking about. The freedom from responsibilities? From oppression? From choice?

There is only freedom to. There's no such thin as freedom from.

There is only freedom to. There's no such thin as freedom from.

Then you don't agree with the tenets of the document you're trying to base your argument on.

The Constitution is based on "freedom from". The freedom to is merely a freedom from the alternative. If you don't define your meaning appropriately, the conversation devolves into madness, as this has.

Ah, yes..! Mention "evolution" and God's defenders are charging en masse every time. However convoluted their arguments may be, it can always be reduced to what you can read on the 1-dollar bill:"in God we trust".
I wonder how many of the sick have benefited by advances in sciences in conjuction with studies in evolution? How many have been cured directly by ID and God's words? Some have the gall to parade their ignorance, delusion and hipocripsy on machines created and powered by the fruits of scientific minds! What a bunch of unthankful hypocritical creeps.

The education of children is not a private concern,

The education of children is not a private concern,

That would be an opinion, nothing more. I, and a lot of other people disagree. Tough noogies.

.... that parents should be very involved in their child's education.

there are too many assholes in this world that think that science is the answer to EVERYTHING...*wrong*.

And the freedom to is just that. Free speech isn't freedom from not being able to speak freely on a billion different topics. I couldn't think of a more idiotic way to define a concept than list all the negatives it prevents than the one thing it allows...

But that's exactly how you're framing your argument above.

You're saying the have a freedom from being educated against their belief system.

i'm saying everybody else should be very involved with and concerned about everybody else's children's education as well

I was sent to catholic grade school as a child for six years, and the BS I was exposed to there set me on a fast track to becoming an evolutionary biologist.

Now notice the part about congress making no law and the part about not prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Thomas Edison tried to make a lot of light bulbs before he finally got one that worked. When asked about all his "failures" he said I never failed, I just found out a bunch of ways not to make a light bulb.

What's funny is that the Miller-Urey experiment was a failure and was known to be so at the time they were teaching this.

Modernmystic posted this:

Thomas Edison tried to make a lot of light bulbs before he finally got one that worked. When asked about all his "failures" he said I never failed, I just found out a bunch of ways not to make a light bulb.

And in another post Modernmystic wrote this:

What's funny is that the Miller-Urey experiment was a failure and was known to be so at the time they were teaching this.

I am noticing a logical disconnect in those two posts. In one experiments that didn't achieve the desired goal of a working light bulb are considered successful and the other an experiment that discovered new knowledge is considered a failure apparently because it didn't get amoeba crawling out of the flask.

Coming from outside the US, I find statistics from reports such as this quite staggering. If a teacher, at any school I have known, spouted religious dogma in a science class as anything but a joke then they would get nothing but ridicule.
The inability to discern a well written book of metaphors and fables for what it is, and such displays of rabid ignorance of human reasoning, is disturbing.

I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying they should have the freedom to determine how their children are educated.

Now notice the part about congress making no law and the part about not prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Not allowing PAID EMPLOYEES to break the Constitution is not breaking the Constitution. Those employees have every right to be just as silly as you are as long as they are NOT ON THE CLOCK or acting as they are representing the school which means the government. When they are on the clock they are NOT allowed to establish a religion.

There's nothing wrong with learning from failures as long as they are ACKNOWLEDGED as failures.

This experiment was touted as a SUCCESS.

Edison didn't get any kudos for building something that didn't light up when you threw the switch.

difference between teaching it and reading Dr. Seuss to the class

1) A school is not the federal government.

A paid or unpaid employee on the clock or off the clock is not the federal government.

2) The federal government, including the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court are allowed (and in fact do) practice religion while "on the clock".

federal government from establishing a state religion is attacked most strongly by atheists.

I don't understand why atheists want to change the constitution to allow the creation of a state religion.

I certainly do not want a state religion and I appreciate the first amendment's prohibition against any law to that effect

No state religion can be established unless there is a law passed to establish such a religion

prevents forever such a state religion -- unless the attacks on the first amendment are successful

As I said, I do not understand why you want to allow the regulation of religious expression

When you say the first amendment does not count,

and we can have laws respecting the establishment of religion a

you negate the reason for the first amendment which was to prevent the formation of a state religion.

Your answer, like all such answers, is inadequate.

I understand that you are so against the expression of religion

that you will risk the establishment of a state religion.

Not wise, but deprecating the first amendment is ipso facto, unwise.

I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying they should have the freedom to determine how their children are educated.

No, they definitely should not. Being a parent does not qualify them to determine how their children should be educated. Only PhD in biology could, to some limited extent.

I was sent to catholic grade school as a child for six years, and the BS I was exposed to there set me on a fast track to becoming an evolutionary biologist.

This is interesting for two reasons. If that education set you on the fast track for evolution it obviously was not so much BS. And I have been 9 years on Catholic schools but wasn't taught any BS. The worst thing was the lack of coeducation.
Are US schools so much different from European ones?

And there is nothing wrong with calling an experiment where you learned positive things a success.

Well you have logical disconnect on this due to you simply wrong about the Miller experiment. It was successful.

Bullshit. Dr. Seuss is labeled as fiction from the start. AND it too has no business in a science course.

If it's so obviously wrong why worry about teaching it? There would be no difference between teaching it and reading Dr. Seuss to the class. You can't have your cake and eat it too...

Don't try to tell me your opinion plays a role in simple arithmetic, or any higher order math for that matter.

Don't try to tell me your opinion plays a role in simple arithmetic, or any higher order math for that matter.

Then don't equate simple arithmetic with philosophical questions.

Is creationism science? No. That's my opinion.

Did human beings evolve from other life forms? Yes. That's a fact.

Does God exist? Yes. That's my opinion.

Did God have a role in evolution, the creation of the universe etc? Yes. That's my opinion. Don't tell me your opinion that he didn't is like saying 1 1=2.

Don't try to tell me your opinion plays a role in simple arithmetic, or any higher order math for that matter.

Then don't equate simple arithmetic with philosophical questions.

Is creationism science? No. That's my opinion.

Did human beings evolve from other life forms? Yes. That's a fact.

Does God exist? Yes. That's my opinion.

Did God have a role in evolution, the creation of the universe etc? Yes. That's my opinion. Don't tell me your opinion that he didn't is like saying 1 1=2.

I don't think you understand what creationism is either. I live very close to the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky, and that museum features exhibits showing human children playing in creek-beds right alongside dinosaurs! Are you kidding me!!!? GET REAL!

The BS I was referring to was the way the religious content was portrayed as fact.

If you haven't recognized the BS yet, just keep attending, it's hard to miss.

just about every major war you could ever think of was due to some type of ignorent religious disput.

The BS I was referring to was the way the religious content was portrayed as fact.

Which religious content? Be specific.

If you haven't recognized the BS yet, just keep attending, it's hard to miss.

When did you begin to read PhysOrg comments?

just about every major war you could ever think of was due to some type of ignorent religious disput.

Only superficially were ignorant religious disputes the causes for about every major war. A more refined analysis shows that about every major war has economical roots.

Then we should only allow only dietitians to feed them, tailors to pick their clothes, car manufacturers, to determine what cars they get, media pundits to determine their internet and television habits...

Being a parent doesn't HAVE to qualify them, being a parent gives them the RIGHT. Regardless of your opinion.

Bullshit. Dr. Seuss is labeled as fiction from the start. AND it too has no business in a science course.

Fair enough. Neither does an experiment which produces amino acids have any business being touted as evidence for abiogenesis in a science course.

Just give them to the state to raise then, cut out the middle man. In fact take them at birth from test tubes when it's possible. Then we'll all be perfect clones without a hint of individuality or mysticism in us.

Sound good?

No, it does not. But unqualified parents determining what is important to know about science for the child sounds bad, too. The truth is in the middle, not in absurd extremist solutions like you propose.

That experiment IS evidence for ONE of the many POSSIBLE hypotheses for abiogenisis. Apparently you do not understand how to interpret scientific results either.

At this point I'm realizing that there is very little you actually do understand. Perhaps you should seek a college education at a university.

I'm talking about any religious perspective being portrayed as fact

If you haven't recognized the BS yet, just keep attending, it's hard to miss.

when did I start reading what comments?

yesterday around the time of my first post

I felt especially obligated to offer my expert knowledge on the subject of evolution so as to make certain no one was misrepresenting the theory.

But unqualified parents determining what is important to know about science for the child sounds bad, too. The truth is in the middle, not in absurd extremist solutions like you propose.

As long as you call ONLY those things a success. I was taught since it made amino acids it made life. That was the EXTREMELY strong impression given at the least.

As long as you call ONLY those things a success. I was taught since it made amino acids it made life. That was the EXTREMELY strong impression given at the least.

It made building blocks of life, not life, and abiogenesis is not proven. If you was taught something different, then your teacher probably messed up.

Demanding your religious creation myth be treated as "science" in a science class is imposing large costs on others.

The problem is not that biology teachers are reluctant to endorse evolution (even though that is a problem)...the problem is that biology teachers don't understand biology themselves.

As to who SHOULD determine what's taught in school. That SHOULD be by the people who PAY for it. If we end up with a bad curriculum so be it. It will get better and change when we realize its not working. The world isn't perfect, it never will be, quit pretending you can make it so by fiat and force.

And I'm asking which specific BS religious content you've been taught on that catholic grade school you've been sent to for six years. Could it be that you never have been taught Catholic religion but assume it to be like Creationism?
Are you assuming I'm attending church?

when did I start reading what comments?
Are you a poser?

Wow, awesome status as a long-time internet banterer. I wish I had the seniority you have. Listen, Cincinnati has a huge catholic population, certainly one of the largest per capita in the nation. And my 80 person catholic extended family has been making sure I understand what it is I'm always criticizing since I was a young child. I don't think I ever eluded to it being the same thing at all. By 'attending' I meant attending this thread. And poser? Haha, do you internet dweebs actually award yourself some type of authentic status because you sit on your ass all day blogging instead of doing research? What would I be posing as?...

That experiment IS evidence for ONE of the many POSSIBLE hypotheses for abiogenisis. Apparently you do not understand how to interpret scientific results either.

It doesn't have anything to do with abiogenesis. Amino acids are plentiful without electricity and simple compounds. YOU are the one who doesn't understand how hard it is to get from amino acids to a single cell. It's akin to saying because there is mud at some point there must be a Hoover Dam somewhere.

At this point I'm realizing that there is very little you actually do understand. Perhaps you should seek a college education at a university.

Maybe you should burn your degree, it didn't do you any good...

As to who SHOULD determine what's taught in school. That SHOULD be by the people who PAY for it. If we end up with a bad curriculum so be it. It will get better and change when we realize its not working. The world isn't perfect, it never will be, quit pretending you can make it so by fiat and force.

As to who SHOULD determine what's taught in school. That SHOULD be by the people who PAY for it.

As to who SHOULD determine what's taught in school. That SHOULD be by the people who PAY for it.

MM, you typically rally against the tyranny of the majority. Why on earth would you be stumping for it here....

Unless in this case you're part of the majority.

Amino acids were not plentiful before they existed idiot!

Abiogenisis is about the formation of the basic building blocks of matter (amino acids) from simpler compounds with the help of electricity.

I have three degrees, which one of them are you criticizing? My B.S., my M.S. or my PhD.?

You're not making any sense, dogbert. What religion is the government attempting to establish by forbidding the teaching of any form of Creationism or ID in its science classrooms?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thrasymachus continued ...,

It is not that government is trying to establish a state religion, it is the fact that dispensing with the first amendment's protections could open the door to a state religion. The first amendment was written to prevent a state religion. It is not wise to dispense with it.

Also those talking about the constitution, do you really need to bring it up to be able to figure out that teaching your non science based creation theory (EDIT: Story) would be biased and then they would have to teach all of them?

America looks scary from the outside.

For the folks that fetishize the Constitution similarly to how they fetishize the Bible, yes. See, you can't tell 'em, "Well, if we teach your fairy tale creation myth, we'd have to teach 'em all." The reason being that they'll just say, "No you wouldn't, because our fairy tale creation myth is right! I know because my fairy tale creation myth tells me so. All those other creation stories are false and you obviously shouldn't teach false stuff, duh." And it's scary from the inside too.

For the folks that fetishize the Constitution

Thrasymachus continued ...,

It is not that government is trying to establish a state religion, it is the fact that dispensing with the first amendment's protections could open the door to a state religion. The first amendment was written to prevent a state religion. It is not wise to dispense with it.

Religionists are pathologically arrogant, closed-minded and dishonest

Religionists are pathologically arrogant, closed-minded and dishonest

This is a generalization.
Obviously you don't know every single believer. But you pretend to know them all.
This is dishonest.

There are honest people and dishonest people on both sides of the fence.
To claim differently is arrogant (arrogance category II; not I or III).

Dishonesty covers a lot of human undertaking, I don't mean to blanket them all.

While religious persons may be totally saints in many endevors, I DO mean dishonesty of what they believe

and what they actually benefited from science while back-stabbing science.

Clear enough?

. I was taught since it made amino acids it made life.

Yes it made amino acids, so what? Amino acids are found everywhere...

Neither does an experiment which produces amino acids have any business being touted as evidence for abiogenesis in a science course.

Nobody's dispensing with it. Current policy banning the teaching of Creationism or ID in science classrooms is dictated by the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment. What part of that is so hard for you to understand?

For the folks that fetishize the Constitution similarly to how they fetishize the Bible, yes. See, you can't tell 'em, "Well, if we teach your fairy tale creation myth, we'd have to teach 'em all." The reason being that they'll just say, "No you wouldn't, because our fairy tale creation myth is right! I know because my fairy tale creation myth tells me so. All those other creation stories are false and you obviously shouldn't teach false stuff, duh." And it's scary from the inside too.

I'm becoming so frustrated with everyone's ignorance on the topic that I'm mistyping things.

You're right, I am posing, as a 35 year-old unemployed fat-ass retard with an internet connection striving to demonstrate why I've never been laid as my tears fall onto my semen-stained keyboard in my mom's house.

On those posts you called me a liar seven times and a troll once.

This is typical for liberals.

When unable to support their arguments, they resort to personal insult -- as you have done.

I have not lied once.

You do advocate regulating the expression of religion

It is not a lie to point out what you repeatedly state.

The first amendment prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free expression of religion.

When you advocate for regulating religion, you advocate for discarding the first amendment.

The first amendment prevents the establishment of a state religion (that what its purpose).

If you should succeed in dispensing with the first amendment,

you will have set up a situation where a state religion could be established.

Therefore by advocating regulation of religious expression, you advocate for removing the constitutional prohibitions which prevent the establishment of a state religion.

I do understand that you want to regulate religious expression so strongly that you are willing to dispense with the first amendment's protections.

But it is no lie to point out that dispensing with the first amendment is requisite to establishing a state religion.

I don't want that.

The part that is hard to understand is how you turn "shall make no law" and "free exercise" into laws and regulation. Make no law means make no law. Free exercise means free exercise.

I actually overturned a decision at the loacl school board using this method...

Clearly I meant to say that amino acids are the building blocks of life... not matter. I'm becoming so frustrated with everyone's ignorance on the topic that I'm mistyping things.

O.K., I lied.

This is your final science lesson MM.

The formation of amino acids requires some form of activation energy.

Heat-energy generated from collisions in space could account for the amino acids found on astroids.

That in no way implies any a priori order to the spacial and/or temporal formation of amino acids in the universe.

There's nothing special about amino acids,

and there's nothing special about life

You will have to become a scientist if you wish to stand a chance in an argument with a scientist.

And here, a conservative demonstrates their lack of comprehension of basic words and how they are structured together to create meaning in things called sentences.

Oh, leave the poor guy alone. He wouldn't be the first of person to let himself get riled by a troll, and he probably won't be the last.

Lie. You are making it quite clear you want to establish YOUR religion in schools on the federal dime.

There you go again calling me a liar while lying about me.

Please quote any statement I have ever made in favor of any religion in any school.

Now I point out that you are liar.

You make up lies because you cannot support your arguments.

It is the liberal way to lie and attack personalities rather than debate.

I think it is refreshing that most teachers refuse to blindly teach the official state religion.

It is always better to let students make determination on what constitutes reality after they have been exposed to multiple possibilities

Not wanting to start a huge argument here, but evolution has never been demonstrated

People generally get upset when you challenge their religion

it is about which religion must be taught in schools and which religions may not be taught in schools

Naturalism is the official state religion of the United States

All gods are dictators. Naturalism is no different in this respect

Personally, I don't care what students are exposed to as long as they are allowed to consider and discuss alternatives.

It is bad when teachers feel constrained to support a particular (state mandated) religion to the exclusion of all other belief systems.

It is also sad when the constitution is disregarded in order to promote a state system of belief.

I keep forgetting I am insulting your religion when I fail to express adoration for Naturalism.

I have never tried to equate religion with science, faith with evidence.

Liar

1) I do not want to require any religion in any school. I also do not see the need to prohibit any religion anywhere including schools.

2) Naturalism as a philosophy or theology is a religion.

Apparently you are a troll too.

1) I do not want to require any religion in any school. I also do not see the need to prohibit any religion anywhere including schools.

2) Naturalism as a philosophy or theology is a religion.

3) The first amendment, despite any argument to the contrary, specifically prohibits congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I will stop feeding the troll except, as needed, noting he is a liar and troll.

--

You favor the rule of the long knives? Or how else do you think to resolve disputes on what to teach in local schools?

It might be noted as well that U.S. education performance has declined in direct proportion to federal involvement in the school system.

Perhaps one should additionally consider educational results outside of the US. Most of the countries with better PISA ratings feature a more centralized educational system.

frajo ,

Perhaps one should additionally consider educational results outside of the US. Most of the countries with better PISA ratings feature a more centralized educational system.

That may or may not be the case, but it is certain that the United States became a world leader in science and industry with schools run by local schools boards. Since the federal government became involved, education has steadily declined to the point that the U.S. is far behind many other nations.

Instead of blaming people, maybe you could specify what actually needs changing about the school system, who cares who implements the solution. Also countries beating America down (destroying is a better word currently) also have government controlled/run schools. It's easy to blame, harder to actually do something other than complaining on the internet.

Naturalism, as the belief system informed by application of the scientific method, is not a religion. A religion is not required, and has no means to translate its ideas about the universe into observations that could be made, and by which those ideas could be evaluated and corrected or discarded. Indeed, a religion holds that its defining ideas do not come from the mind of a human being, but from something transcendent, and requires those ideas be treated with the respect transcendence deserves. Science knows that all its ideas are man-made, and treats its ideas with the respect appropriate to their flawed and finite sources. That's what makes science special, and why it deserves being called out in public education. It is a body of knowledge that is wholly our own, and claims no greater or other authorship or application.

When local boards, elected by their communities and responsible to the parents in those communities make decisions, they tend to produce excellence. Failure to do so results in election of new board members.

but it is certain that the United States became a world leader in science and industry with schools run by local schools boards.

Since the federal government became involved, education has steadily declined to the point that the U.S. is far behind many other nations.

And you assume that there is a causal relation. But it could as well be a negative correlation concealed by a strong economical factor which caused a brain drain from abroad.

ScientistAmauterEnthusiast ,

I don't know what you want other than what I gave you.

Explain the SPECIFICS of what they are doing wrong

you haven't said what they are specifically doing wrong

Can you not comprehend what you read? He asked you to:

Explain the SPECIFICS of what they are doing wrong

Why do you think I should spend years of research to point out to you in detail why something which is not working is not working?

I don't know what you want other than what I gave you.

I identified the problem: control taken from local boards and vested in the Department of Education.

I identified the solution

From your answer above, I presume you did not grow up in the 1960's?

Having lived through the '60's to present and having watched the steady decline of standards in the schools in response to federal mandates,

I can speak from experience when I say that federal involvement in the schools is directly responsible for the decline in the education of our children.

The decline began with desegregation efforts.

Today, with federal emphasis on such goals as "no child left behind", children are passed as a matter of course even though they cannot perform sufficient to earn a passing grade.

So long as the federal government sets the standards, performance will not improve.

Why do you think I should spend years of research to point out to you in detail why something which is not working is not working?

Not enough characters allowed for that and I don't know everything or have the time to be your research assistant.

And you assume that there is a causal relation. But it could as well be a negative correlation concealed by a strong economical factor which caused a brain drain from abroad.

From your answer above, I presume you did not grow up in the 1960's?

Having lived through the '60's to present and having watched the steady decline of standards in the schools in response to federal mandates, I can speak from experience

when I say that federal involvement in the schools is directly responsible for the decline in the education of our children.

Why do you think I should spend years of research to point out to you in detail why something which is not working is not working?

If you cannot do that, which you obviously can't, then how will you know if the govt gets out of the game and a different body replaces it, that they won't be doing exactly the same things which aren't working?

Your basic argument is, govt is bad, anarchy is good, the details are unimportant.

frajo ,

You admit that you have no personal knowledge of the U.S. education system, yet you have no problem discounting my first hand knowledge of it as ideological and propaganda.

It takes a lot of cheek to admit ignorance while attacking knowledge.

You admit that you have no personal knowledge of the U.S. education system, yet you have no problem discounting my first hand knowledge of it as ideological and propaganda.

The tragedy is that by avoiding getting over their racism by fleeing the cities, that racism has deepened.

No, I gave you sufficient reason

Lower passing grades

Lower standards to make a passing grade.

Continually lower standards as performance declines.

Programs such as "no child left behind" which pressure school systems to pass everyone regardless of status

Federal requirements on standardized tests which encourage teachers to "teach the test" instead of the student.

Loss of federal funds to schools who "fail" to many students.

I advocate that the federal government stop regulating schools and allow the local boards to resume running the schools.

...a religion holds that its defining ideas do not come from the mind of a human being, but from something transcendent, and requires those ideas be treated with the respect transcendence deserves. Science knows that all its ideas are man-made, and treats its ideas with the respect appropriate to their flawed and finite sources. That's what makes science special, and why it deserves being called out in public education. It is a body of knowledge that is wholly our own, and claims no greater or other authorship or application.

That was very well crafted and spot on. It would be baffling if anyone tries to refute what you just said.

I would only point out that while Thras is absolutely correct when he writes that "religion holds that its defining ideas do not come from the mind of a human being" they nevertheless actually do, in fact, and this disconnect is the source of the problem with religion and fanaticism.

Skeptic_Heretic ,

Calling me a racist? Talk about trolling.

I have been discussing the decline in education due to federal government intrusion into the education system.

Be a racist troll. I am neither.

Then why are you stating that blacks are not as intelligent as whites? [\q]

I never said any such thing. You said that in the same comment where you accuse me of saying it.

It is amazing how you can be a racist troll and then accuse others of your behavior in the same post.

I'll add hypocrite to your racist, trolling description.

[/blockquote]

Gawad,
Why are you taking up for Skeptic_Heretic? He is the only one making racist remarks.

Continue with your lies and racism, Skeptic_Heretic.

You have outed yourself as a liar

a racist

a hypocrite

and a troll

You cannot refrain from your racism, can you?

My statement: I find you stance that desegregation reduced scholatic performance to be racist as you're inadvertantly stating minorities, in particular blacks, are less intelligent than whites.

Skeptic_Heretic,

My statement: I find you stance that desegregation reduced scholatic performance to be racist as you're inadvertantly stating minorities, in particular blacks, are less intelligent than whites.

Yes, you keep saying that. You should be ashamed, but racists are never ashamed of their behavior.

The decline began with desegregation efforts. Passing scores were lowered and the requirements to meet the lowered scores were lowered. As schools failed to meet the lowered standards, continually lower standards were set.

Going to apologize, or do you have no shame?

With the above post, I count five posts where you state blacks are inferior to whites and one other post where you call me a bigot.

He's obviously very much ashamed. Accusing you of one's own offence is a typical displacement activity.

frajo,
Review the posts. Only Skeptic_Heretic is making racist claims.

Gawad,
Why are you taking up for Skeptic_Heretic? He is the only one making racist remarks.

Gawad,

Fine. Take up for the racist.

Basically you've outed yourself as a rascist stating generally that blacks do not perform as well in school because of heritage.

Skeptic_Heretic has stated multiple times that blacks are inferior to whites, each time claiming that I made those statements. He is a liar and a racist troll.

maybe go into how desegregation caused the beginning of the fall of the US education system, maybe in a way that makes you seem like you think desegregation wasn't a bad idea...

I noted that education standards began to be lowered during the 60's during the time of school desegregation. This is true.

I noted that education standards began to be lowered during the 60's during the time of school desegregation. This is true. I was in school at the time and experienced the declining standards.

As soon as I noted when the decline in standards began, Skeptic_Heretic began calling me a racist while making racist statements and attributing them to me.

Do you want to start making racist statements now?

What is it with you people. Are you all members of the KKK or something? Why do you think people with dark skin are inferior to people with white skin?

soulman,
Standards declined because the federal government (who set the standards) lowered those standards. That was my point then and remains my point. The federal government's involvement in education has caused a continual decline in education standards.

Because you keep supporting this ridiculous claim of Skeptic_Heretic, I ask if you are supporting his claim of black inferiority.

education standards began to be lowered during the 60's during the time of school desegregation

Skeptic_Heretic states that education standards were lowered because of black inferiority and you seem to agree

I never made any racist remark

he only racist remarks made were made by Skeptic_Heretic.

He made multiple statements that blacks were inferior to whites and each time he made that remark, he said that I had made that remark

Read the remarks. I never made any racist remarks.

How is it that you cannot see that he is trolling me by making racist remarks and then claiming that I made them?

The first racist statement Skeptic_Heretic made was this:

He is a liar and a racist troll.

Since the federal government became involved, education has steadily declined to the point that the U.S. is far behind many other nations.

Skeptic_Heretic states that education standards were lowered because of black inferiority and you seem to agree.

The decline began with desegregation efforts. Passing scores were lowered and the requirements to meet the lowered scores were lowered.

Pre Constitutioal Convention:
Land Ordinance of 1785 and Northwest Ordinance of 1787- General

The precedence for the federal government being involved in public education is found in documents that pre-existed the Constitution. One is the Land Ordinance of 1785 , along with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

It might be hard but it can be done. If a racist SOB like George Wallace can become a decent human being so can you. Of course he needed a bullet in his back to change. Perhaps you can do it without that.

Women working and raising kids is another major cause, possibly the largest cause, of a decline in education.

Easy there Ethel, he may be a douche, but you're going overboard here.

While I cannot speak for the situation in the US, I cannot believe this.
Uneducated women, constrained to children, kitchen, and church, tend to teach their children uneducated knowledge

And they preserve the conservative notion that girls don't need to learn anything else but cooking, praying, and serving their husband's needs.

Or perhaps you simply aren't aware of what happened to George Wallace.

Gawad,

Fine. Take up for the racist.

same inference can be made about your comment about a bullet to the back as can be made about doggybert's inference about blacks dragging down scholastic standards

Perhaps you can do it without that.

but I do feel compelled here to call you up on your comment

You make your positions clear when you continue to condone Skeptic_Heretic's racist trolling.

You made the statements.

You began the racist comments by calling me a racist for the comments you made.

Not once have you said you did not mean the racist remarks you made.

You do, however, have lots of company. Several people support your position.

Only if you ignore an entire sentence of what I wrote.

This is not the only time I have used Wallace as an example of people changing for the better.

YOU are the first person to have a problem with that.

Did you want me to leave that line out and thus imply what you have managed to put in that wasn't there?/

And I feel compelled to point out that YOU saw something that not only wasn't there but I VERY specifically said a bullet was NOT needed to avoid being misconstrued.

I don't need a 'benefit of a doubt' since I was pretty damn clear on it in the first place.

I did not ignore what you wrote. I even quoted what you wrote in full.

I did not ignore what you wrote. I even quoted what you wrote in full.

So?

As I have already pointed out, I didn't ignore your rider.

Yeah, sort of.

Not really, because you left open the door to an implication not unlike doggybert's.

Not by normal people. I will give YOU the benefit of the doubt and assume that Doggy has effected your thinking on this thread.

I did not ignore what you wrote. I even quoted what you wrote in full.

It shows you are the first with the problem.

So?

So perhaps the problem lies with thee and not with me.

I think it was the "shot in the back" bit that is just so graphic that it elicits a visceral reaction.

but it is so very very graphic that it does make one squirm. At least it does me.

You had best hope the case won't be arbitrated in England.