High school biology teachers reluctant to endorse evolution in class

Jan 27, 2011

The majority of public high school biology teachers are not strong classroom advocates of evolutionary biology, despite 40 years of court cases that have ruled teaching creationism or intelligent design violates the Constitution, according to Penn State political scientists. A mandatory undergraduate course in evolutionary biology for prospective teachers, and frequent refresher courses for current teachers, may be part of the solution, they say.

"Considerable research suggests that supporters of evolution, scientific methods, and reason itself are losing battles in America's classrooms," write Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer, professors of political science at Penn State, in today's (Jan. 28) issue of Science.

The researchers examined data from the National Survey of High School Biology , a representative sample of 926 public high school biology instructors. They found only about 28 percent of those teachers consistently implement National Research Council recommendations calling for introduction of evidence that evolution occurred, and craft lesson plans with evolution as a unifying theme linking disparate topics in biology.

In contrast, Berkman and Plutzer found that about 13 percent of biology teachers "explicitly advocate creationism or 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.

Berkman and Plutzer dubbed the remaining teachers the "cautious 60 percent," who are neither strong advocates for nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives. "Our data show that these teachers understandably want to avoid controversy," they said.

The researchers found these teachers commonly use one or more of three strategies to avoid controversy. Some teach evolutionary biology as if it applies only to molecular biology, ignoring an opportunity to impart a rich understanding of the diversity of species and evidence that one species gives rise to others.

Using a second strategy, some teachers rationalize the teaching of evolution by referring to high-stakes examinations.

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.

Finally, many teachers expose their students to all positions, scientific and otherwise, and let them make up their own minds.

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."

Berkman and Plutzer conclude that "the cautious 60 percent fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry, undermine the authority of established experts, and legitimize creationist arguments." As a result, "they may play a far more important role in hindering scientific literacy in the United States than the smaller number of explicit creationists."

The researchers note that more high school students take biology than any other science course, and for as many as 25 percent of high school students it is the only science course they will ever take, even though a sound science education is important in a democracy that depends on citizen input on highly technical, consequential, public policies.

Berkman and Plutzer say the nation must have better-trained biology teachers who can confidently advocate for high standards of science education in their local communities. Colleges and universities should mandate a dedicated undergraduate course in evolution for all prospective biology teachers, for example, and follow up with outreach refresher courses, so that more biology teachers embrace evolutionary biology.

"Combined with continued successes in courtrooms and the halls of state government, this approach offers our best chance of increasing the scientific literacy of future generations," they conclude.

Explore further: A clear, molecular view of how human color vision evolved

Related Stories

Teaching evolution: Legal victories aren't enough

May 20, 2008

In many ways, much has changed since the famous Scopes Monkey trial of 1925. In recent years, US courts have consistently ruled that teaching explicitly religious alternatives to evolution in public schools is a violation ...

Zogby poll on evolution is released

Mar 07, 2006

A poll by Zogby International reportedly shows most Americans support public school teachers presenting evolution and intelligent design theories.

Recommended for you

Contrasting views of kin selection assessed

Dec 17, 2014

In an article to be published in the January issue of BioScience, two philosophers tackle one of the most divisive arguments in modern biology: the value of the theory of "kin selection."

Microbiome may have shaped early human populations

Dec 16, 2014

We humans have an exceptional age structure compared to other animals: Our children remain dependent on their parents for an unusually long period and our elderly live an extremely long time after they have ...

DNA sheds light on why largest lemurs disappeared

Dec 16, 2014

Ancient DNA extracted from the bones and teeth of giant lemurs that lived thousands of years ago in Madagascar may help explain why the giant lemurs went extinct. It also explains what factors make some surviving ...

User comments : 461

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

joefarah
1.7 / 5 (44) Jan 27, 2011
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.
EarthAgent
1.4 / 5 (31) Jan 27, 2011
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!
210
1.3 / 5 (28) Jan 27, 2011
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!

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!
210
1.1 / 5 (34) Jan 27, 2011
The LAW of Evolution does not exist: 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 (Just do a google or check the articles archived on this site!)..it is not, NOT a law (like gravity) yet, yet.
Further, evolution NEVER ever gets explained as the CAUSE for everything (where is it's blueprint?) but, like all beings is itself guided or controlled by terrestrial factors, time, even human taste. It is not 'THE source' it is just, well, a fine theory that needs more bones in it's skeleton...!
'nuff said.
210
1 / 5 (30) Jan 27, 2011
" 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."
Science CAN shed light it simply has NOT finished doing it and some of the "shed light" is human biased!
Empirically and completely, evolution has not been completely proven and creationism MAY not be, EVER completely discredited SINCE THEY CAN BE ultimately, possibly, SHOWN TO BE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS working on the same side!!!
mvg
1.6 / 5 (36) Jan 27, 2011
Enough science DOGMA! Teach students (and teachers) to think--This is what is sorely lacking in schools.

Absolutism is not appropriate--who knows?, another theory may supplant the current one (perhaps even next week, year, or century).

The future will laugh at your dogmatism.

EvgenijM
4.4 / 5 (30) Jan 27, 2011
How can you trust a teacher who does not like his discipline? Those teachers should be fired.
pauljpease
4.5 / 5 (40) Jan 27, 2011
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...
Quantum_Conundrum
1.5 / 5 (43) Jan 27, 2011
Considerable research suggests that supporters of evolution, scientific methods, and reason itself are losing battles in America's classrooms


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

That's ridiculous.

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.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Technically, this article advocates violating STUDENTS first ammendment rights on two counts, and TEACHERS first ammendment rights on one count.

Moreover, the ammendment restricts CONGRESS from making a "state religion". It says nothing about government employees having personal oppinions.
Liamo
4.7 / 5 (31) Jan 27, 2011
"…uses DNA sequencing to precisely describe the recent evolution and success of a drug-resistant lineage of the bacteria…". This is from (Staying 1 strep ahead…).
There seems to be a 'blindness' in the USA regarding the obvious working and consequences of biological evolution. Humanity's constant battle to survive in a world of disease needs open eyes and open minds.
Unfortunately, many of our religious beliefs were formulated in an age of ignorance. If, in a society, these beliefs are not updated with respect to new discoveries and the advancement of knowledge, stagnation is guaranteed.
Remember the 1960's America and the problems in schools with the teaching of astronomy. Eyes had to be opened or America would not have won the subsequent 'space race' later on in that decade.
I am constantly astounded when I read articles like this how such a technologically advanced country as the US, is more 'backward', in some respects, than the countries it is attempting to 'liberate'.
breadhead
1.4 / 5 (41) Jan 27, 2011
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.
Jotaf
4.6 / 5 (28) Jan 27, 2011
LOL! Only in America.
DKoncewicz
4.5 / 5 (34) Jan 27, 2011
I'm not sure if the above posts are simply being sarcastic, or trolling... but I'm not sure how a person who wishes to pursue science can answer the most important questions of the universe out of a fairy tale book that makes the ridiculous claims it does.
Parsec
4.8 / 5 (37) Jan 27, 2011
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.

Is this the royal we? A lot of people understand evolution perfectly well. Should we apply the same rule to Calculus? Chemistry? Math? Just because YOU don't understand something doesn't mean that it shouldn't be taught.
Liamo
4.6 / 5 (33) Jan 27, 2011
First of all, there is no evidence that evolution occurred,

Forget about 'evolution occurred', evolution is happening now!
Talk to anyone involved in the fight against viral infections. The greatest weapon in the armoury of these life forms is the ability to evolve and change. Can you not see this. If its happening now isn't it possible it happened yesterday or maybe further back in the past???
LOL! Only in America.
dinkster
1.8 / 5 (20) Jan 27, 2011
Evolution and Creationism are only conflicting ideologies for people that read the book of Genesis as literal rather then figurative, as it was meant to be. The premise established in the Bible of man's ability to self rule should elicit critical thought and debate. This book, in a way, was the forefather of western philosophy. I don't understand why this debate is always viewed by one extreme or the other.
InterestedAmateur
3.7 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2011
See we happens when you feed a Troll, it breeds. Please stop feeding them!
DamienS
4.5 / 5 (36) Jan 27, 2011
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.

Why are these people in teaching positions? They should be sacked, immediately!
Terrible_Bohr
4.8 / 5 (34) Jan 27, 2011
This is why US students are bad at science.
dinkster
2.4 / 5 (17) Jan 27, 2011
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.
Oxensraiser?
4.3 / 5 (31) Jan 27, 2011
How can you possibly not accept the reality of evolution as a biology teacher? What were they doing in college all those years and classes and lectures and such? "I'm going to devote my life to teaching something I think is untrue, and will try to undermine my own profession at every possible turn even though I have spent years learn the core tenets of the discipline and know that 99% of actual biologists agree that the theory of evolution is correct (you cant get 99% of biologists to agree that the sky is blue)." That is willful stupidity and is inexcusable. These teachers FAIL at sentience and should be demoted to pets, or ornamental shrubbery.
trekgeek1
4.3 / 5 (29) Jan 27, 2011
This demonstrates how many U.S. science teachers need to be begging for change on a freeway offramp. Fire them all, and replace them with competent scientists. I vow that if a teacher ever presents creationism in my child's biology class I will pursue them through the courts until they've been fired and chased from the city. It really is stories like this that make me want to see the decline of our country so that I can explain to people how their anti scientific views have destroyed their country. We don't deserve to be a world power if such a high percentage of our teachers and population are complete idiots.
orsr
4.7 / 5 (26) Jan 28, 2011
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.
ShotmanMaslo
4.3 / 5 (26) Jan 28, 2011
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.
ShotmanMaslo
4.3 / 5 (24) Jan 28, 2011
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.


Indeed. I come from a devout Christian family, but everyone of them agrees with evolution, bg bang theory etc. One third of what Jesus said was parables, so even from a religious standpoint literal interpretations are not the only possibility.
AlwaysRight
3.4 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2011
Will this convince any creationists? I mean the zoo keeper says this gorilla has advantages over other gorillas... His father passed on the genes to this gorilla and his sisters.

httpDELETEME)//news.ninemsn.com.au/viralvacuum/glance/144128/gorilla-walks-on-hind-legs.glance
Frankb
4.6 / 5 (25) Jan 28, 2011
The problem here is not whether evolution or a form of creationism is right. The problem is that evolution is a scientific theory, and as part of science, may be taught as science. Creationism, in its current forms, is not a science and cannot be since it is based on revealed scripture and as such is a form of dogma. This means that it is not science.

Science is constructed from theories about the universe, all of these theories must be tested and be refutable in the sense that if, due to experimental tests, the theory is shown to be in error a new theory can be proposed or the current one modified. Creationism is not capable of this feat since it, as the word of God, cannot be denied in any way at all. Its words must be accepted at face value and so it is not science and not a theory.

This means that creationism cannot be taught in schools as a science. Instead it may be taught as an aspect of religious thought. I do not see a problem with differentiating between the two.
jmcanoy1860
3.7 / 5 (19) Jan 28, 2011

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!


Actually, HS science teachers lack both the post graduate education and research required to form a useful scientific opinion on the matter. They are entitled to their own private or public concerns and considerations but classroom is NOT the place to address these. Science is NOT a democracy and I DO, therefore, expect them to "follow blindly".

They can have an opinion when they are publishing research in peer reviewed journals, just like every other scientist.
VOR
4.3 / 5 (20) Jan 28, 2011
This problem is part of a bigger problem. America is becoming stupid. In a growing way we allow discussion of worthless opinions. There's no progress because no matter how long the discussions go on, the ignorance is allowed to be recycled. Much of the responsibility for this can be placed on the religious and political Right. From AM radio lunacy to the Fox network, they put an ignorant agenda ahead of any competency of reason or thought. With the influence this has on teaching in general, we create a generation that's even more vulnerable to this regressive contagion.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (21) Jan 28, 2011
the cautious 60 percent fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry, undermine the authority of established experts


Oh HORROR, we wouldn't want to undermine scientific AUTHORITY....

What are these fucking people advocating, science or dogma?

As for the rest of the article. 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.
Kingsix
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 28, 2011
Yes there should be mandatory refreshers and courses in university to explain how to talk about the false dichotomy of Creation vs. Evolution. There are many standpoints, and at least 2 of which I find unsuitable for the classroom. 1-That the bible explains a scientific method by which God created the universe, 2 - That science, evolution etc means that there is no God.
I would label myself an Evolutionary Creationist. The real problem is that we need to teach our teachers and students about fact vs. belief, ancient scientific understanding, ancient poetry etc. all in classes on science. If people can understand why ancient texts are written the way they are and that science can only go so far before everyone take a step of belief. Then we may finally finish this problem of people squaring off science vs. faith when they cannot be directly compared.
arki
1.3 / 5 (22) Jan 28, 2011
They call this academic cleansing, don't they?

Perhaps because the (obviously regarded) "hottentrot simian vermin" haven't forgotten that Darwin's Lebensbornesque brainchildren begat rivers of misery, death, and destruction not even a century out of mind.

or Perhaps because they actually believe science should be a derivative of observation, verified by experimentation, physical evidence, and repeatable observations, and not in spite of it.

or Perhaps they, like me, just wince in incredulous disbelief that the lockstep koolaid consumers can produce ream after ream of tomes extolling the brilliant ballet of complexity and simplicity exquisitely engineered by astronomically sequential favorable permutations of random nothingness.
Kingsix
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2011
Arki : I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. Maybe I am not smart enough to understand the way you write, maybe English isn't your first language, but in the future, try writing a normal response instead of a poetic one, and try to hold back on expressing your intelligence through the use of your vast vocabulary in such an intelligible manor. Thanks.
dogbert
1.6 / 5 (27) Jan 28, 2011
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.
Kingsix
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2011
I would agree dogbert, with everything, except suggesting that evolution is propaganda. Its pretty evident in every day life.
The propaganda there might be that Religion is proven wrong by evolution.
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (24) Jan 28, 2011
Kingsix,

Not wanting to start a huge argument here, but evolution has never been demonstrated. At the very least, the concept of evolution provides a good foundation for classification and it may even be a valid theory. Throughout the whole history of man, no one has ever seen the emergence of a new creature.
thales
4.8 / 5 (16) Jan 28, 2011
dogbert - evolution has in fact been observed. In fact, the appearance of new species has been observed in modern times. Here you go: ttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5
dogbert
1 / 5 (20) Jan 28, 2011
thales,

As I said, don't want to start a big off topic argument, but you will note that I did not use the term species as the meaning of species is very ambiguous (whatever the arguer wants it to be). Hybrids do not represent the evolutionary emergence of new creatures from selection pressures. A mule is not evidence of evolution.
thales
4.5 / 5 (23) Jan 28, 2011
So "species" - a scientific word with a technically precise meaning - is more ambiguous than "creature"? New virii and bacteria appear all the time. Is that satisfactory, or do you require the spontaneous generation of a fully-formed beast from inorganic materials?

Not sure why you would require a demonstration of evolution anyway. Did you need a demonstration of the atomic theory of matter before you accepted the existence of atoms? Or did you just accept the mountains of indirect evidence?

"It hasn't been observed" is such a canard. The evidence for evolution is incontrovertible, and at this point resistance to it is itself evidence of a stubborn refusal to engage with reality.
jmcanoy1860
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 28, 2011
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.


Really?! What "kind" of evidence do you require? Head on over to talkorigins, they will sate your curiosity.
dinkster
1.4 / 5 (12) Jan 28, 2011
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.


Did I say otherwise? Scientist's are too easily offended when they are called into question. Debate should be used as a tool to teach, not as a personal affront, even if the topic is considered settled.
Paljor
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2011
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???...
trekgeek1
4.8 / 5 (16) Jan 28, 2011
ID isn't a theory. It's just an idea. Science class is about learning well established theories that have been proven. Simply stating "some people think a god did it" isn't a theory, it's just a statement. I can say that an alien named Ted blew up his apartment trying to make beer and that's how it all happened. Does this deserve time in class? It's a theory, right? Some half brained idea doesn't have a right to be taught as a scientific theory.
dogbert
1 / 5 (18) Jan 28, 2011
Paljor,
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???...


No, it hasn't, but you can believe that if you want to. People generally get upset when you challenge their religion.
ShotmanMaslo
4.3 / 5 (19) Jan 28, 2011
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.


Maybe we should let the students decide after we expose them to the possibility of a flat Earth, or astrology. Do you realize how ridiculous is that statement?

Science is not democracy, there is no deciding. Science is a dictatorship of scientists, and their opinion on the matter is clear in this case.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (21) Jan 28, 2011
This article is not about what religion is the true religion, it is about which religion must be taught in schools and which religions may not be taught in schools.

All gods are dictators. Naturalism is no different in this respect. Naturalism is the official state religion of the United States. But the people of the United States in the majority do not worship science and do not meekly bow down to the state directives.

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.
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (25) Jan 28, 2011
Love progressives. They will fire anyone who does not believe the way progressives believe they should believe. Yet if a progressive teacher espouses hate, thats ok, because everyone has a right to their opinion. We need to be tolerant.

For progressives, Christians who practice what they believe cannot be teachers, public servants, doctors, nurses, printers, social workers, psychologists, pharmacists, scientists, politician

I think I'm missing a few categories, but the job categories progressives dont want christian in is growing.

Love that tolerance they preach. Progressive tolerance definition is Shut up, believe and do as you are told.

Tolerance I believe is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices foreign to ones own.
ShotmanMaslo
4.3 / 5 (24) Jan 28, 2011
freethinking - I will explain it to you in free market terms, so you will understand, if you are not a progressive:

If you hire someone to wash you a car, and he wont do it, and even deflates your tires instead, should you not fire him?

If people hire teachers to teach science in science class (which means evolution, since thats current scientific consensus), and they wont do it, and even teach unscientific myths instead, why is situation suddenly different?
Terrible_Bohr
4.7 / 5 (19) Jan 28, 2011
Love progressives. They will fire anyone who does not believe the way progressives believe they should believe....

I work for a school district, and happen to know that there are plenty of Christians teaching in public schools. The fact that they might mention it in passing indicates to me they're not living in fear of being found out. Nobody cares what they believe, so long as they keep it out of the classroom.

So, do you have any examples of this fascist progressive state in action? Or is this just what you keep telling yourself to keep your righteous indignation smoldering?
Moebius
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2011
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?....


In a word, yes. YOU don't understand it. No, HELL yes.
ekim
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2011
There is an island with two species of birds. A white gull and a gray gull. They are not able to breed with each other. However if the white gulls fly east, they find more gulls, on other land masses, with whom they can breed. These gulls have gray spots. Continuing east, from land mass to land mass the gray spots on these gulls become larger and larger. The same thing happens to a gray gull flying west, finding gray gulls with white spots that become more pronounced the further west traveled. Half way around the globe the gulls are no longer white nor gray, but an even mix of both. This pattern of evolution can be found many times throughout nature. The idea of species is a human misconception much like the idea of race. To often we lose site of the larger picture with all its intermediate steps.
MarkyMark
5 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2011
Wow doesant anyone here ever learn basic science!!!
PaulieMac
3.7 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2011
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.


I agree, in principle. Although to my mind, ID is a little outdated. I'd like to see taught Automated Creationism. This theory proposes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster designed a process by which all of creation would come into existence through natural progression, initially triggered by Him in one significant event, called the Big Boil*. Such natural progression would also serve to mislead scientists, something that causes the Flying Spaghetti Monster much delight.
Physmet
2.8 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2011
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."


Where are we living again? I SHALL TELL YOU WHAT YOU MUST BELIEVE!!! Wow, these guys are puffed up with their own importance.

I bet that most biology teachers believe in evolution. Even my high school teacher from the private christian school I attended believed in it. Now, whether a teacher feels like shouting down their students into submission as opposed to allowing them to believe as they wish, is probably more the issue. And, if the parents are going to get up in arms, they probably don't want to deal with that either.

[cont.]
Physmet
2.3 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2011
There are, however, more diplomatic ways of approaching it while still making a strong statement. Here's what I think they should do. Teachers can explain that they understand that everyone has personal beliefs and that that is as it should be. However, science has found evolution to be the strongest explanation for human origin and has found abundant evidence to support it. They will be teaching evolution with its support, as it is of great value, regardless of what else a person believes, as it can be demonstrated in action in our day to day world.

In other words, don't tell them what they MUST believe. At the same time, stress the strength of the theory. 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!
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2011
These teachers are not identified in this article as being idiots or 'extremists' but intelligent DOUBTERS.
There's no such thing as an intelligent doubter of evolution.

There is a point in time where an idea has so much evidence that it is perverse and ridiculous to doubt it. This is true of the shape of the planet, the organization of the sun and planets in the solar system, the germ theory of disease, and evolution.

If you doubt evolution, explain antibiotic resistance. Try not to look to stupid when you do it.

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!
Evolution is a fact, not just a theory.
dogbert
1.9 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2011
Physmet,
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."

Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2011
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."
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.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (23) Jan 29, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,
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.
PaulieMac
5 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2011
Try not to look to stupid when you do it.


Oops, looks like you missed the above mate, hth ;-)
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (20) Jan 29, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,
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.


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.

I will continue to see a theory as a useful model.

(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.)
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (17) Jan 29, 2011
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.
Are you trying to say we're intentionally breeding bacteria for antibiotic resistance? Are you this intentionally dense?
Selective breeding works for single celled organisms as well as with horses, dogs, plants, etc.
Selective breeding is expression of natural selection.

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.

Anyone else want to try? dogbert cashed out.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2011
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.
Sorry son, not a pantheist.
(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.)
If evolution was false none of his advanced toolsets would work. Try again.
dogbert
1 / 5 (16) Jan 29, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic ,
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.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2011
Exactly. Breeding for traits.

And when this occurs over multiple generations, without human intervention, what is it?

Answer:Evolution.
A staphylococcus bacteria which is methicillin resistant is still a staphylococcus bacteria.
Do you know how many species there are of staphylococcus bacteria?

This is akin to saying if a species of humans split off from us that had twice the mental capacity and 1/4 the physical capacity that they're still primates.

Well no shit, but they may not be definable as homo sapiens sapiens.
breadhead
1.4 / 5 (22) Jan 29, 2011
If we are to decide what is scientific based on 40 years of court cases, then real science is in trouble. How do people determine the intentions of the Constitution when it doesn't mention evolution? The men who signed it were God believing men. It is much more likely they would have been on the side of creation. Evolution nonsense has been forced upon society by "so-called" scientists, such that the average person thinks they present unbiased research. 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. Watch the movie "Expelled". If only there was proof for evolution, there might be a reason to believe in it.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2011
I am not conviced that it is illegal to teach creation in the public school classroom.
Then tell us what the scientific basis for creationism is.
Watch the movie "Expelled".
Oh shit. Another moron.
If only there was proof for evolution, there might be a reason to believe in it.
Give us your proof that god created you out of mud. If you don't see proof of evolution, it's because your eyes are closed. To say evolution is unevidenced is risible. To say full form creationism is more compelling is delusional.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (20) Jan 29, 2011
breadhead ,
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.

But the courts have been making laws for many years and as long as they are allowed to make laws, the constitution has no meaning.

As long as the federal government controls education (a function which it has no constitutional authority to do), we will have these issues.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2011
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.
You're also not allowed to use taxes to fund religious teachings. Public schools are funded by your taxes.

If you want your kids to learn creationism instead of evolution, use a private theology based school. If you want to handicap your kids in modern society, do it on your dime, not mine.

Secondly, how about they teach your kids that they came from the blood of a pierced penis or tounge as per the Aztec and Mayan creation myths dictate?

Would you be ok with that in your science classes?
dogbert
1.5 / 5 (27) Jan 29, 2011
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.
PaulieMac
4.5 / 5 (17) Jan 29, 2011
I am not conviced that it is illegal to teach creation in the public school classroom.


What kind of "creation"?
Iroquois?
Australian Aboriginal?
African Bushman?
Hebrew/Christian?
Greek?
Japanese? Mayan? Norse? Egyption? Aztec? Flying spaghetti monster?

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


It always cracks me up when a "sky fairy" follower makes a statement like that. Oh, delicious irony!

Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,

Your error is not that you have faith in your evolution theory
Your error is the matter of going on faith rather than evidence.
but that you seek to compel all other men to believe as you believe.
I don't believe evolution, I know evolution, and can demonstrate evolution. You cannot demonstrate creationism, therefore it is false.
You are welcome to your religion. You are not welcome to compel others to believe as you do.

You're welcome to have a religion, I choose not to. You are not welcome to stick your head in the sand and be ignorant without being mocked.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (17) Jan 29, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,
You're also not allowed to use taxes to fund religious teachings.


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.
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (21) Jan 29, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,
There is no debate, there is no controversy. Evolution is a fact.


I don't believe evolution...


Inconsistent. You do believe evolution and you seek to make others believe as you do. Your subsequent disclaimer is ingenuous.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2011
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;..."
See that part where it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

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.

Making a law discriminating against a religion violates the first amendment.
You want to teach religion in science class? I want to teach science in your church. Let's see who gets pissed off first.
Inconsistent. You do believe evolution
Nope, nothing to be believed, only known and observed.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2011
Inconsistent. You do believe evolution and you seek to make others believe as you do. Your subsequent disclaimer is ingenuous.
You say my "subsequent disclaimer is disingenuous".

So tell me why it is. What about evolution can I not demonstrate. Challenge me. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

This will be a tremendous amount of fun for me if you decide to "play".
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (22) Jan 29, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,
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".


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.

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


There is no law requiring teachers to be omniscient and infallible. Many things have been taught in many science classes which have subsequently been invalidated.

Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2011
You will doubtless note that I have already stated that there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to fund schools.
Which is incorrect as it falls under commerce, welfare, and provisional security clauses.

Only you are advocating laws to control religious expression. I have noted repeatedly that there is no constitutional authority for such laws.
As a Rastafarian, you would not have the legal right to take your "sacrement" of marijuana.

Beyond that, the public school system is a function of the state. The State may not endorse religion. If you want creationism taught in science class, then we're going to have to teach ALL creation myths. Mind if I tell your kid about Zeus and Aphrodite? Perhaps I can show them how to worship Baal or Mammon as well, no?
Many things have been taught in many science classes which have subsequently been invalidated.
When contradictory evidence is found.

Do you have contradictory evidence? Nope.
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (19) Jan 29, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,
You say my "subsequent disclaimer is disingenuous".

So tell me why.


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

What about evolution can I not demonstrate.


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?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2011
Well, when you say you believe on thing, and then you say you believe the exact opposite, you have been disingenuous.
When did I say I "believe" in anything we've talked about? Are you trying to argue the definition of belief with me? Are you trying to say there's no difference between belief and knowledge? That's very ignorant.

I believe M Theory is correct because I have no evidence of it and I cannot demonstrate it. I know evolution is correct because all evidence supports it and I can demonstrate it. You have faith in creationism because you have believe in it contrary to all evidence. That is the difference between faith, belief, and knowledge. You'd do well to learn that.
No one has been able to demonstrate evolution.
Ignorant and incorrect.
Do you intend to say that you have done what no one else has been able to do?
No one?
htp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJsa3Tzkjas
htp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s

(cont.)
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2011
What new creature have you developed through evolutionary processes?

So we're going to ignore the arsenic tolerant extremeophiles and go with some nylon eating bacteria.

Nylon is a wholly man made product that does not exist in nature anywhere on the planet.

Yet a bacteria eats nylon....

htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

So since Nylon is man made, these bacteria couldn't have existed before nylon was available for them to digest, I think this satisfies your challenge.

Next?
Skepticus
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2011
I couldn't stop laughing. So is the commie. Future of America: Fundamentalist Christians fight fundamental Islamist terrorists with Bibles in their hands. Science is a dirty word and is against God's will. Who needs science-derived weaponry when you can foam at the mouth madly like your enemies? They will think twice before attacking because you are so much like them...
zslewis91
1 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2011
the whole lot of you make me sick. what a joke. the point is simple, argue with peer reviewed publications..."Scholarly peer review" "refereeing"....In academia, these ill-formed gross attempts of argument are comical at best and are ramblings, not points...SO, all of you without degrees, or minds to use the ones you have. keep it up. this stuff is really working for you
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (21) Jan 29, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,
Really? Youtube videos promoting evolution?

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

Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2011
And lastly, to make a weak comparison, for expanitory purposes...

htp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfEmlPYXVY0

There's your micro vs macro evolution. That's bullshit too. So ignore your fallback position.
You say you can demonstrate evolution. Go do that then return here with your notes and the new creature you evolved.
Ah yes, and your true ignorance shines through. You can't say you have a problem with a theory if you don't understand the theoy.

Remember when I said you were anti-science with your stance on Global warming? Well you've proved that you're anti-science with your statements here.
zslewis91
1 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2011
the whole lot of you make me sick. what a joke. the point is simple, argue with peer reviewed publications..."Scholarly peer review" "refereeing"....In academia, these ill-formed gross attempts of argument are comical at best and are ramblings, not points...SO, all of you without degrees, or minds to use the ones you have. keep it up. this stuff is really working for you
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (24) Jan 29, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,

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

Evolution remains a useful theory.

And I am not anti-science. I am against pompous people who presume to compel others to believe as they believe.

(I neither believe or dis-believe in evolution. It has not been adequately demonstrated, but it could still be a valid model.)
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2011
I neither believe or dis-believe in evolution. It has not been adequately demonstrated, but it could still be a valid model.)
Keep that head in the sand, wouldn't want it to learn anything.

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

How much time you got? I'll demonstrate evolution to you if you have the time.
htp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sxh_L1LUNk
zslewis91
1 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2011
the whole lot of you make me sick. what a joke. the point is simple, argue with peer reviewed publications..."Scholarly peer review" "refereeing"....In academia, these ill-formed gross attempts of argument are comical at best and are ramblings, not points...SO, all of you without degrees, or minds to use the ones you have. keep it up. this stuff is really working for you
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (22) Jan 29, 2011
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.

Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2011
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.

And you say you aren't anti-science.

This is unfortunately no longer entertaining, and any further argument will make you think your viewpoint has creedence.

It was fun laughing at your ignorance, thanks for that.
zslewis91
1 / 5 (17) Jan 29, 2011
"@SKEPTIC=HERETIC & @DOGCRAP"

the whole lot of you make me sick. what a joke. the point is simple, argue with peer reviewed publications..."Scholarly peer review" "refereeing"....In academia, these ill-formed gross attempts of argument are comical at best and are ramblings, not points...SO, all of you without degrees, or minds to use the ones you have. keep it up. this stuff is really working for you

PS@skeptic.....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?

@DOGCRAP, pm the publications that support your claims??HAHA..right...
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (21) Jan 29, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,

It was not really fun watching you fail to support your statements.

It is impolite to laugh at you, so I won't.
frajo
4.8 / 5 (16) Jan 29, 2011
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 attempt to ascribe the same confidence level to religion and science. This is - due to the lack of falsifiability of religious statements - erroneous at the best and deceitful at the worst.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (21) Jan 29, 2011
frajo ,

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.

If I say a theory is a theory, how have I offended you? The theory of evolution is a theory. Be offended if you must make a god of your science.
Jotaf
4.9 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2011
And that's why the scientists, through their scientific method, have made useful things for mankind, while the general populace is eating fries and watching the super bowl. No problem with that, just don't claim to be smarter than them.

I'm so proud to live in Europe -- it's got its problems, but at least most people don't assume they're more knowledgeable about a subject than people who actually studied it their whole lives.

BTW those Italian scientists with their cold fusion didn't pass peer review. They must give other scientists all info to replicate their work or their empirical study which contradicts theory won't make it into the science corpus. The system works!
ekim
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2011
You cannot demonstrate it. No one has and you would doubtless be in line for the Nobel prize if you could demonstrate it.

Actually if you read my prior post you will see an example of evolution in action. When do I get my Nobel? I can give many examples of a single species becoming two.
frajo
5 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2011
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.
Then I don't understand English when you write:
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.
Here you describe a scientific theory as being an religious object.
If I say a theory is a theory, how have I offended you?
Not at all. I just felt motivated to hint at the falsifiability concept which is _the_ fundamental difference between science and religion.
And which justifies why evolution must be part of modern science education while myths (like the biblical genesis) have no place there.
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2011
ekim,

1) You didn't demonstrate anything and you never said you would demonstrate anything.

2) Your white and gray and spotted gulls appear from your description to be gulls. Did I miss something? Where did you demonstrate evolution? When did a new [whatever] appear?

Selection has been used by human beings to breed for traits for as long as our history informs us. Selection by human beings does not differ from selection without humans. Either can breed for traits. Evolution states that selection eventually leads to new creatures. It may well be true, but until you can produce such a new creature by evolutionary processes, you have not demonstrated evolution. You have only demonstrated selection resulting in various traits.

A gray gull, a white gull and a spotted gull are all gulls.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (26) Jan 29, 2011
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.

PaulieMac
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2011
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.



So... Teaching your children that "the invisible sky fairy did it" will cause science to flourish?

Well.. Perhaps... Roses do quite well in horsesh*t, I suppose...
Egleton
1 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2011
Hello there.
Satan speaking.
Mugs.
You fell for the oldest trick in the book.
Divide and conquer.
I used the old straw man trick.
It goes like this. "If you believe in God, you believe in the world being created 4004 years ago,1030 am. It wasn't, therefore God doesn't exist."

You idiots are a laugh a minit.
estorm
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2011
I am deeply ashamed and offended by the overwhelming number of ignorance displayed in this comment forum. 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. Perhaps these individuals need to quit reading science news because they aren't learning anything. Instad they should go back to school and learn the basics instead of just being updated on events in science, which don't provide practical information for ignorant people.
dogbert
1 / 5 (19) Jan 29, 2011
estorm,
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.


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.

You apparently do not know what at theory is. Why, do you suppose, evolution theory is called a theory if it is not a theory?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2011
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.


Oh the irony here is hilarious.
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.
Tell us what you think a scientific theory is.
Dr_Tom
1 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2011
No matter what a court minding the BAR association ,that is the British Attorney Registry says,Intelligent Design wins.
Go ahead ,test me,challenge me for your BAR ass..., It does not change the facts of life.
So lets have a genetics conversation,and especially a dot or processer conversation,or maybe a "How these earths were actually created" conversation without interference from the paid trolls with an agenda.
Let everyone find out what "Someone" is afraid of.
ekim
5 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2011
A gray gull, a white gull and a spotted gull are all gulls.

They are all birds as well. However the gray gulls and the white gulls cannot breed with each other making them different species. They can breed with the spotted gulls. Eliminate the spotted gulls and you have two different species of birds. No humans were involved in this evolution from one species to two species.
Dr_Tom
1 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2011
Those bird species have"Something" preventing them from interspecies mis-match. Just as you normally do also,and why some couples are barren,just as in the "Animal Kingdom"
"Someone" has disturbed the balance and we are working to return it.
The "Helpers" are sentient,just as some of you and definitely the birds.
This and each and every other system were designed and it took men to create the spheres and eco system necessities for YOU to exist here and there.
To think some bang created the super universes and created our beautiful eco system partners is just patently absurd and you know it,and if you do not,"Someone" has paid you to deny that process,or maybe you all work very,very hard for free for your cult.
Soul conversations are very scary for many of you,now why is that??
MorituriMax
4.6 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2011
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.
zslewis91
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2011
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.


THANK "GOD" ;) some one with a brain

"@SKEPTIC=HERETIC & @DOGCRAP"

the whole lot of you make me sick. what a joke. the point is simple, argue with peer reviewed publications..."Scholarly peer review" "refereeing"....In academia, these ill-formed gross attempts of argument are comical at best and are ramblings, not points...SO, all of you without degrees, or minds to use the ones you have. keep it up. this stuff is really working for you

PS@skeptic.....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?

@DOGCRAP, pm the publications that
Dr_Tom
1 / 5 (16) Jan 29, 2011
Mixing Christianity with a creation or evolution theory is the BIG,BIG mistake ,not seen by those emotionally involved.
Religion is a "Construct" not a product of the genetics engineers or the planetary engineers who engineered the eco systems in the Super-universes to support the "Creation"
Scientists do support the creation FACT,those who visit the theory bench are not in the loop.
The divisive fight amongst those not in "The Loop" have an agenda to split up everyone to support their own agendas.
Centuries of training in the "Theories" of each faction have wrought deadly fights and nations at war.
Who benefits?
Churches and governments have been infiltrated to destroy them from within. Who benefits?
Scientists DO support the FACTS of the created species and eco systems,what the hell is wrong with yours?
Terrible_Bohr
4.5 / 5 (15) Jan 29, 2011
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.


Except that this article is saying that evolution is not being taught, or being presented half-assedly, in 60 percent of the sample.

But I'm sorry to interrupt. I think you were going off about unsubtantiated claims again....
bmcghie
5 / 5 (15) Jan 29, 2011
Wow. Just wow. Keep up this kind of schooling, and the USA is doomed on the world stage. The sheer magnitude of ignorance is impressive, I'll give them that.

However, this is a MUCH bigger issue than simply whether or not a theory is sound. More importantly, many religious people simply cannot grasp that their beliefs are but mutations of those held by billions of other individuals. Logically, how can you be certain that YOURS is the correct system of belief, and everybody else is in the wrong, especially given that everyone else believes vice versa?

Sure, call the practice of science a religion. Sure, say we all place faith in the "theory" of evolution. Tell you what though, when/if the day comes that we are presented with evidence that cannot be explained by this theory, we'll GLADLY modify/improve/discard our current theory for one that works. We don't give a shit about WHAT we believe, so long as it accounts for all the evidence.

/rant. Sigh.
gwrede
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2011
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."
Yes. And that is exactly what is happening in this thread.

And it's got a lot worse in the last 12 months. Sigh.
FloydPinkerton
5 / 5 (12) Jan 30, 2011
I've never read such vitriol on Physorg. Creationists come here and expose their ignorance like some over-coated pervert in a park.

Here's a novel idea: Search for the truth.

It is possible that we live in a universe without a god, but even if there were one, it is only in seeking the actual truth that anyone will ever find him.

"There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil."
-A.N. Whitehead
matt_broderick
5 / 5 (16) Jan 30, 2011
I teach HS biology in the bible-belt, and I teach it well. I explain how science is testable, how theories are different from belief, and how depth of evidence from scientific experimentation leads to the acceptance of a theory.

I am confident they won't grow up and spurt nonsense on threads like this.
yoatmon
3.4 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2011
After having read most of the comments I conclude that
the earth must be flat. Before the theory evolved that the earth is a sphere popular belief postulated that the earth is flat. Observation of the other planets in our solar system revealed long ago that they were round spheres but our own planet was flat. Earth with its genius inhabitants was a universal exception created from an old man with along white beard. Meanwhile the "flat theory" has been replaced with common knowledge that the earth is indeed round and spherical. Despite this "tremendous gain" of knowledge, there are still plenty of arses about that believe the earth is flat amongst other ridiculous convictions which they attempt to impart to others and try to convince them respectively.
Trial and error have been the prevalent method to accrue knowledge. "God" knows everything but some specially enlightened individuals know everything better. (cont'd)
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (14) Jan 30, 2011
yoatmon,
You spout nonsense. The earth is easily seen to be a sphere from any large body of water or the shore of a large body of water. It was known to be a sphere thousands of years ago.

It is a common attack to attribute idiocy to large groups of people you disagree with and then show how idiocy is idiotic. Such foolishness is nonsense and does not fool anyone.
yoatmon
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2011
They don't have to learn by the cumbersome method of "trial and error" or by accepting proven knowledge from others. No, they are bent on inventing their own wheel, again and again. It's a pity indeed that such a breed is permitted to instruct a gullible young generation. Science and enlightenment means something else to me. I'm thankful that I had good teachers and not such quirks that claim to be teachers.
The government has certain agencies that monitor and govern important issues subject to e. g. "The Pure Food and Drug Act". It is just as important to monitor the "mental food" available to everyone to prevent harmful or lethal damages that can be caused from some more or less careless individuals. I don't want my children or grandchildren "fed" with useless or harmful information.
DontBeBlind
1.2 / 5 (17) Jan 30, 2011
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.
yoatmon
5 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2011
@ DontBeBlind:
In which world do you live?
ekim
5 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2011
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.

Perhaps you should read my first post on this page.
StandingBear
1 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2011
Evolution has been demonstrated as a universal principle of the development of life on this world. In reality, panspermia may have seeded this world from others, and a kind of 'Jonny Appleseed' of humanity may have spread the genes for our intelligence to our primate ancestors thirteen thousand or more years ago, give or take a millenium or few. This does not negate God or Jesus. In a multidimensional universe of infinity, there is room for a universal God that created us all, and of the reality of one of his sons as emissary to our little dusty corner of it. I am a Christian and can know and have faith in this. Teachers have to live in the real world of jobs and careers evaluated by narrow minds that however control their destinies....school boards...trustees, etc. Fired by idiots, you have no influence, or income. That makes real teachers compliant slaves to nonsense all over the world.
Skultch
5 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2011
I get why people defend science on these threads. They care about the improvement of all of us. I don't quite get why the creationists / misologists troll here. Is it simple insecurity? Do they lack the courage to throw away a lifetime of worthless beliefs? Do they then misrepresent the situation to make themselves feel better about the increasing clarity of their mistaken beliefs?

Threads like this make me feel SO lucky that I never had a religious upbringing. What a waste of time that would have been, and what an effort it must be to shake it off.
frajo
4.4 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2011
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. Only some specific cases of religious mindsets, like Creationists or ID-ers, prefer to not take part in the general progress of human knowledge.
I don't regret to have been taught Latin as second language and I don't feel handicapped in scientific discussions.
bmcghie
5 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2011
Skultch: Couldn't agree more.

I'd like to thank my parents, and all the excellent teachers I had during my malleable years. :)
Skultch
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2011
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.


Quite true. I'm not sure why you assume I think otherwise.

However, a religious upbringing only adds to the challenge of becoming a scientist, engineer, doctor, teacher, leader, etc. I am merely relating the fact that I feel lucky not to have had to go through that extra challenge; to have to unlearn. Now that I think about it, though, I have gone through much metaphysical, philosophical, and scientific learning to try to understand my place in this thing called existence. I guess if I assume my path to be the optimal one, I have had an advantage. I'm not 100% confident that that is true.
Suprmark
1.2 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2011
The difficulty lies in that the theory of evolution has at least two aspects to it that are entangled:

1.The demonstrable genetic mechanisms that allow organisms to adapt to (or alter) their environment. This aspect is rarely controversial.

2. The additional hypothesis that evolution is random with the unstated implication that there is no intent behind the creation of species. It is here we get into creation myth territory, be it theistic or atheistic. Rather than explain that scientists have not discerned any equation that predicts how mutations occur, many teachers assert that the mutations are random - a mathematically defined concept that, as far as I have read, has not been demonstrated.

It is then a simple logical step to think that this proves God does not exist, ignoring the slightly more complex, yet still logical, steps that demonstrate that if there is a God, He could choose to create a system that uses randomness as we have for lotteries and Monte Carlo statistics.
FloydPinkerton
5 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2011
The reason the Creationists and ID proponents come here to argue is because they're completely inept at assembling a single argument in peer-review publications. That is where science is done, not in public forums or Physorg comments.

If you want to do science, then do it scientifically. Do what the scientists you loathe so much do, and actually PROVE something. Until then, you're just hot air and white noise to the rest of us.
Grallen
5 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2011
How is this even an argument!??!

"A five-day conference held in March 2009 by the Pontifical University in Rome, marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species, generally confirmed the lack of conflict between evolutionary theory and Catholic theology, and the rejection of Intelligent Design by Catholic scholars.[32]"

Check Wikipedia!

THE CHURCH BACKS EVOLUTION.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (20) Jan 30, 2011
It seems to me that creationists are extremely disrespective to the god who supposedly made them and everything. After all this god gave people senses and the ability to reason, apparentlly to be able to understand in great detail how his many creations work.

In using these traits, people have uncovered conclusive evidence that evolution explains life on all it's many forms. The evidence is voluminous indeed, and grows each day. Few creationists know just how much there is or how self-reinforcing it all is.

And yet they choose to believe a few lines in an old book which has obviously been written by men, instead of believing this huge mountain of supposedly god-given evidence to the contrary. This means either their god gave us faulty senses and a flawed brain, that god constructed a bizarre universe that only looks like it makes sense, or that he deliberately wrote a book full of lies.
Cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (20) Jan 30, 2011
So it seems that creationists are calling their god a lying, deceiving confounder when they choose to believe in creationism.

And since any kid with half a brain should be able to discern this as they begin to learn about evolution and all the evidence there is to support it, I suggest we don't teach them creationism as it would just piss them off and make them distrust what they're being taught in general.
DontBeBlind
1 / 5 (17) Jan 30, 2011
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. You can say theirs all kinds of evidence to support it but guess what theirs not enough to Prove it..
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.
FloydPinkerton
5 / 5 (12) Jan 30, 2011
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.


No, it is not. A theory in science is a model that explains reality, makes predictions, and is falsifiable. Your statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what a theory is in science.
DontBeBlind
1 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2011
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?
meBigGuy
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2011
I see evolutionary theory divided into two distinct areas:
1. Common Descent
2. The origin of life
Too often the argument degenerates because uncertainty about the second clouds acceptance of the first.

However, behind both of these is the mathematical weakness of the argument that purely random change with filtering by the environment can account for the observed complexity and rate of change. It is unfortunate that so many then feel the need to invoke mystical solutions that in themselves cannot be explained.
The mathematical improbability of the current paradigm is a scientific anomaly that will lead to a new scientific explanation (see Kuhn on Revolutions). A remarkable biological system somehow evolved and persists. I have no doubt that science will get to the bottom of how it came about and how it really works.
T6Y
5 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2011
@DontBeBlind: You picked the wrong definition of 'theory' from the 1913 edition of Webster's Dictionary. Please update your dictionary and carefully review all meanings of the word. Thank you, and I hope you have a nice day.
FloydPinkerton
5 / 5 (11) Jan 31, 2011
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?


As you speculated, you have found the wrong definition. You have found the common usage of the word theory that causes so much confusion among the un-initiated in science. Try searching wikipedia for "scientific theory" and you can cure that ignorance.
FloydPinkerton
5 / 5 (11) Jan 31, 2011
I see evolutionary theory divided into two distinct areas:
1. Common Descent
2. The origin of life


Wrong. The second is another science altogether, called abiogenesis. Evolution only covers speciation by natural selection and random mutation.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2011
the fact of adaptive evolution is HERE!
There is no difference.
Our world and all that live on it ADAPT in deed
That IS evolution.
The theory of evolution needs patching BADLY
Ignorance needs to be replaced with actual knowledge.
Every couple of months we find something else that changes what we know or thought we knew about evolution
No. EVERY DAY we find out more about have evolution took place in specific instances.
..it is not, NOT a law (like gravity) yet, yet.
Gravity is NOT a law. There are THEORIES about how gravity works just as there are theories about how evolution works. BOTH are supported by observation.
Further, evolution NEVER ever gets explained as the CAUSE for everything
Which is quite correct as evolution is NOT the cause of everything. It is what happens after life STARTS. Until life starts there is no evolution. Well atoms and molecules evolved from simpler ones but since they don't actually reproduce it is not the same thing.

More
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 31, 2011
) but, like all beings is itself guided or controlled by terrestrial factors,
Exactly what any competent biologist will tell you. Evolution is a process of mutation and SELECTION by the environment. Nothing difficult to understand and nothing can be avoided either.
It is not 'THE source' it is just, well, a fine theory that needs more bones in it's skeleton...!
It is just as fine a theory as General Relativity. The for gravity and evolution is irrefutable. The only question is the details. We know the basic process. Well I know the basic process. It seems that you don't.
'nuff said.
Yes. That is enough to establish your ignorance on the matter. Would you like to change that and become more knowledgeable? Could you tell us if you are yet another Creationist that is pretending to simply have questions or were those statements legitimate unlike most of those making similar statements.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.8 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2011
Oh dear you fibbed. It wasn't enough.
creationism MAY not be, EVER completely discredited
It is fully discredited.
SINCE THEY CAN BE ultimately, possibly, SHOWN TO BE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS working on the same side!!!
No. That is NOT creationism that can be presented that way. That is Intelligent Design and so far no ID fan actually is doing that. They are trying to claim proof of ID and they don't have it.

Ethelred
StandingBear
1 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2011
A large body of old software exists that allows one to peer into common computer executable files to see what is there. Not surprisingly, all matter of things! Nonsense included! And yet we like to assume that all executable code is compact and one mission.... Not only copyright so called statements, but stray text, hidden messages, and programmer banter are all there. So it must be with all computer code. DNA, the oldest code in the universe, may well also contain such messages. If we accept a bit of bioengineering in our past by visitors that spread our God Given genes to here, we may also have to accept the possibility that our DNA may have something to tell us in an ancient alien language. Perhaps some open minds in control of shrewd new computers will prise at least some of these secrets from the vault of our genetic codes.
PaulieMac
5 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2011
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.


I am giong to be laughing to myself for days over this one :)
Ethelred
5 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2011
so wait, objecting to a theory is somehow undermining "reason" itself?
Someone was a little over the top BUT Creationism is NOT based on reason. So teaching it as science it NOT reason. It is religion.
There's also something called "intuition" wherin someone knows something is wrong, even if they can't personally prove it.
And it is often wrong. Sometimes it isn't even intuition. Someone just lies about their religion and pretends it is intuition.
Forcing someone to teach something they do not believe violates the first ammendment too
I don't think so BUT I don't think anyone should be forced to teach reality. Just fire the idiots or make them teach something they understand. If they can't understand evolution they really aren't very bright.
Forbidding students to teach creationism
I hope you meant DISCUSS. Students are rarely fit to teach. It would be OK in a comparative religions class. Not in a biology course.

More
Ethelred
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2011
or to ask questions related to creation also violates the first ammendment.
No. I suggest you reread the First Amendment. I have no problems with students asking questions of that sort HOWEVER a LOT of parents wouldn't like the answers I would give them. There is no evidence to support Creationism so that just would not go down well even though it is true.

Moreover, the ammendment restricts CONGRESS from making a "state religion"
Also most states have similar rules AND the 14 Amendment extends those laws to the states in any case. Only one IDIOT on the Supreme Court thinks otherwise.
. It says nothing about government employees having personal oppinions.
BUT government employees are NOT allowed to force their religion on others while doing their government job. Off the job they can be as idiotic as they want.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2011
the whole lot of you make me sick.
How many times do you plan on making that idiotic post?
In academia, these ill-formed gross attempts of argument are comical at best
Yes. And is this a peer reviewed site? No. So go away or join in.
SO, all of you without degrees, or minds to use the ones you have.
I know more than you about Evolution without a degree. Many here have degrees. Heck even some of the idiots. Do you? If so in what? Can you prove you are working in robotics? Can you prove you aren't a robot? So far you fail the Turing test.
i had fun laughing at you
Little things for little minds.
your just as dumb for even concidering arguing with someone that calls into question "evo"..what are you thinking?
Trying to change minds. Sometimes it works.
publications that support your claims??
He is posting nonsense but we find it entertaining to expose him to reality. What is YOUR excuse for posting? Other than being a green and scaly troll.

Ethelred
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2011
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...
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2011
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. This is why ID is barred from education in some states. It has no evidentiary support and instead wants to be taught as "part of the controversy" well, there's no controversy if there's no other theory.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2011

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.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2011
Define "force".
Trapped in a classroom with an authority figure. Why did you bother to ask?
The converse is also true and the thing the founders of this country were actually concerned with...
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.

Ethelred
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2011
Trapped in a classroom with an authority figure. Why did you bother to ask?


Because I wanted to hear that bullshit answer. Thanks for obliging.

What if the other side decided to call what you advocate "forcing" their children to not believe in God?

You people are so full of shit and hypocritical...

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


Where did this idiotic assumption come from?

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.


Indeed. When they open a church with government money you have an argument. Until then you're full of shit.

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


It wouldn't matter if the guy was appointed by the ghost of GEORGE WASHINGTON. It was a bad legal decision. Do you think the legal system can make mistakes, or is it the equivalent of the God?
DontBeBlind
1 / 5 (11) Jan 31, 2011
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. Now this is the part where you get angry and say my exact same words back to me :) . And when you do. I win :). Ty have a nice day enjoying your created world ;)
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2011

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.

The younger you are, the easier it is to make you believe something "from authority".

After all, why do you think children almost always have the same religious beliefs as their parents?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2011
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
FloydPinkerton
5 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2011
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.


Oh how the irony burns.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 31, 2011
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?
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.
Isn't there something in the constitution about THAT one too?
Actually no. The Constitution protects your right to freedom of belief. You are free to believe whatever you wish to believe. The state is not allowed to create a mandated religion, nor are they allowed to enact laws that create unlawful discrimination.

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

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.
FloydPinkerton
5 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2011
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?


If your cherished beliefs cannot survive collision with the truth they aren't worth many regrets.

No, the constitution does not protect one from being wrong.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2011
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.

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


Which was my point...re-read it.

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.


Totally irrelevant to the point. Those who feel they are having their beliefs stripped away by FORCE don't care. Nor should they.

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


That I'm wrong is your opinion, and the constitution most, and civil rights act most certainly DO protect me from your opinion.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2011
Including disavowing my religious beliefs in favor of what you believe?
MM, just to touch on this point again:

Would you sit in a maritime ship builder's class that endorsed the specification of the Ark? Of course not, because you wouldn't learn anything of value in the art of shipbuilding.

Would you recommend we teach biology courses based on the tenets of creationism? Of course not, because instead of analyzing a virus to determine how to defeat it, you'd be praying and waiting for a God (not picking any particular religion here) to create an anti-viral agent.

It's complete nonsense. I understand your argument, it would be a valid argument if there were more than one valid model of overall genetic progression.

When I took physics, I was taught valence shell atomic models and Bohr's model of the atom. I wasn't taught the plum pudding model, the rutherford model, and Bohr's model, I was only taught the most accurate and demonstrable model. We must teach facts.`
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2011
cont from above:

And religion, in this instance, is not factual, nor demonstrable to a point of relevance.

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.

No, it's completely relevant. We don't teach Homeopathy to doctors because it's incorrect, regardless of the belief that it works, there's no evidence ot say it works.

Beliefs are not taught in school. If your beliefs conflict with the cirricula of the school system, drop out and be useless. I'm not going to argue teaching controversy where one doesn't exist. If you don't agree with evolution, too bad. Life continues with or without consent.
FloydPinkerton
5 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2011
That I'm wrong is your opinion, and the constitution most, and civil rights act most certainly DO protect me from your opinion.


Perhaps, but some opinions are based on facts, while others are not. If your opinion or belief contradicts what we know to be true in science, then you're wrong.

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of what we can prove.

The theory or relativity isn't correct because Einstein believed it; it's true because Einstein could demonstrably prove it.

Would you have the alternate "theory" that storks bring babies taught alongside copulation and pregnancy theory in medical school?

Oh, and stay away from emergency rooms! Western medicine (and all of biology) is based on evolution.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2011
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.
FloydPinkerton
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2011
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.


On this we disagree. The beliefs of the parents have little or no bearing on what is scientifically accurate. Teach science, not opinions, and we'll have a better educated populace.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2011
Hopefully you all haven't forgotten that I'm NOT a creationist, that I DON'T believe that creationism should be taught in school.
I haven't forgotten it but I'm absolutely confused as to why you'd pick a chance to play devil's advocate on this one.
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.
Ok, well we see what that has gotten us so far.
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.
Actually, we haven't had secular public education, we're still battling back ridiculous creationism style nonsense.

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.
SteveL
5 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2011
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. We should respect people's right to persue their version of "the truth", whether we agree with them or not - provided that their faith when expressed does not impede or harm the rights of others to persue their own course.

There really is no excuse for a teacher to fail to teach modern scientific theories in a science class. Failure to do so should be grounds for review, censure and potential decertification and consequent dismissal.

If family leadership is concerned via their faith that modern scientific teachings are contrary to thier beliefs and harmful to their children, there are certified faith-based learning istitutions available. Sadly, this option may stunt the educational capacity of some children, but educational triage may be the price we pay for some of our freedoms.

Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 31, 2011
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...

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.


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?
Skultch
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2011
They don't view one as science and the other as religion...GET IT?


Yep. They're wrong. You still haven't addressed the simple analogies above. GET IT?
FloydPinkerton
5 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2011
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?


That is their error, not ours. The fact they lack the metacognitive ability to discern the difference is adversely affecting the education of our high-school students. This is cause for alarm, and should be rectified.

The penetrating nature of science only works because, by removing as much human bias as possible, it shows us the difference between what we want to believe, and what we have good reasons to believe.
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 31, 2011
You're still not getting it. This isn't an argument you're going to win with logic, and clever analogies.

The simple fact is that you do not have the right to tell someone else's kids what they'll learn any more than they do yours. That you don't see this, can't grasp it, or disagree with it is irrelevant. They're not going to stop trying to assert their right to control their child's education...and (as misguided as they are) I for one applaud them...
Skultch
5 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2011
No one is after mind control or brainwashing here. You are putting up a straw man. They can go to private school and church. We have a right to say that only passing testable theories should be taught to children with tax dollars.
FloydPinkerton
5 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2011
You're still not getting it. This isn't an argument you're going to win with logic, and clever analogies.


It's you who misunderstands the point. They can educate THEIR children any way they want, sure. But that doesn't negate the fact that they want to teach everyone else's kids too, which is why we're having this problem (high-school teachers scared to teach science). They aren't the only ones with children, do you get that?

Private schools that teach religion as science exist, but in my opinion, they should not be accredited unless they teach science in science class. Otherwise, if any of those disadvantaged kids decide not to choose unskilled labor as a career, they'll be prepared for the college curriculum that lies ahead of them.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2011
You seem to think that tax dollars are more "yours" than "theirs"....
FloydPinkerton
5 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2011
You seem to think that tax dollars are more "yours" than "theirs"....


That is an illogical assumption.
Skultch
5 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2011
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.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2011
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.


Now you're getting it...
frajo
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2011
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.
ziprar
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2011
Excellent article. More and more American Consumers are produced every day.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2011
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. Parents should not and do not have right to control what their children learn in school, that is the job of scientists in relevant fields and pedagogic experts.

Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2011
I strongly disagree. Education is compulsory in modern society regardless of the wish of the parents.


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.

"We're going to force your kids to learn this. Not because we have the stronger argument, because if we did we wouldn't need to use force in the end. We're doing it because we want to be able to force our will on you and your children for nothing more than the sake of doing it". THAT'S the honesty being veiled behind bullshit arguments about tax dollars and separation of church and state.

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.

Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2011
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.


It is their job to raise their children, and part of that is determining what they are taught. Defining science doesn't even come into it, that you don't get it isn't surprising. 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...
Thrasymachus
3.1 / 5 (20) Feb 01, 2011
I disagree with your assertion that it is a parent's right to control their child's education as well, MM. They have a responsibility to see their children educated, just as they have a responsibility to control their behavior. But when you have a responsibility, that does not mean you have some claim against others, it means that others (those you have the responsibility to) have a claim against you. It is "up to the parents" to see that their child gets an education in the same way that it is "up to them" to see that the child doesn't commit criminal behavior. They don't have absolute leeway in choosing the means to meet those responsibilities. Refusing to teach science in a science class is child abuse nearly as much as putting out cigarettes on their arm to punish them for "backtalk."
SteveL
5 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2011
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 see educational failure as a more complex issue than just "teachers aren't teaching" or "teachers are teaching nonsense". While both may be true, from my observations the endimic failures seem to be mainly based on a systematic lowering of educational and knowledge-based standards. For the student and the educator. I'd lay the lion's shares of this responsibility on the department of education and the parents. First and foremeost the opportunity (including the quality of education in general) of a child is the prime responsibility of their parents. Teachers are responsible for the topical specifics of the educational process. If parents abrogate their reponsibiltiy through laziness or inattention then one of the most important checks on the education of their child is lost.
ShotmanMaslo
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2011
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.


I said the curriculum has to be determined by scientists in their respective fields, not by government(!), people or parents. In a theocracy, such a policy will actually act as a safeguard against disrupting secular curriculums.

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.


If you dont agree with government-enforced curriculum, it is more optimal to teach your child your view in the private, and then let the child decide where the truth is.

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2011
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.
Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2011
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...
frajo
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2011
That you used a metaphor comparing a criminal act
It's not my metaphor. It's by Bertolt Brecht, from his (and Kurt Weill's) Threepenny Opera: "What’s breaking into a bank compared with founding a bank?"
to parents determining what their children are taught just shows that...well, you're an idiot.
Thanks. Your emotional markers facilitate to see your intellectual dead ends.
But a lot of us already knew that...
You're not sure, so you invoke virtual company.
leftfield
5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2011
@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 has been more than a hundred years since the theory was taught in biology. And it has been several decades since children were taught evolution in middle schools and high schools. Yet, we're still getting questions like, "If we came from apes, why are there still apes?"

It's obvious that you cannot teach children anything that their parents force their children to remain ignorant about. With such weak and unenthusiastic teaching, evolution is one of the easiest theories to undermine as soon as a child returns home.

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.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2011
@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.


I'd agree with most of that. I think the "shoulds" ought to be left to the parents though.

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


I learned evolution and embrace the theory, despite my Mother's conniption fits about it :-)

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.


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...
Skultch
not rated yet Feb 01, 2011
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...


Wait... Do you think there is sufficient evidence for that? I don't think it rivals evolution in strength. I mean, I know I think it could be taught, and a lot of regulars here do, too. But, you?

That's a good question, actually. I think, at the current state of the evidence (or lack thereof), I would only teach that theory in University. HS is probably too early for people to handle the physical discussion needed for such a class.
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (16) Feb 01, 2011
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.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2011
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.
ekim
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2011
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...

Which God or Gods are you referring to? Zeus is cool, especially in raping bull form, Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe last week and we can't forget Xipe Totec.
Terrible_Bohr
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2011
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.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2011
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.
He is a politician. Town politics...
frajo
4.3 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2011
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.
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2011
The line has tobe drawn between school and church. They have to be separated. No religion in school...


No. No line has to be drawn. In fact, the first amendment to the U.S. constitution prohibits any such law or laws.

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.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2011
Frajo
The line has tobe drawn between school and church. They have to be separated. No religion in school...
Dogbert
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.
How about you read the Constitution AND Frajo's post again AND then reread this ludicrous post of yours. Then admit you posted nonsense since the Constitution AGREES with Frajo. Except Frajo said 'school' and the Constitution says the Feds and with the passage of the 14th Amendment the states are beholden to it as well.

Ethelred
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2011
Ethelred ,

Why don't you read the first amendment. I'll make it easy, here it is:

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
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.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2011
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.
Find me a rastafarian who can publically take his sacrement. Oh that's right....

You have freedom of religious belief. The state can't tell you not to believe. The state can't make it illegal to believe. The state most certainly can comment on your religion and refuse to teach it in state run public schools.

You need to read the amendment again, particularly the "will make no law respecting the establishment of" part.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2011
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.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2011
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.
And you seem to not understand it. The next word sets the tone for your catch phrase of "no law". The Congress shall make no law RESPECTING the establishment of religion. Now that doesn't mean they won't praise a religion. That means they will not rule on religion. In the auspices of a state function or establishment, there hshall be no interference by religion in the function of that organization. ie: no creationism in science class unless you can establish a scientific basis, which you can't.

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.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2011
Sorry I challenged you. You apparently cannot understand simple concepts. That is why I .suggested you get help.
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2011
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.


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.
Modernmystic
1.1 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2011
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.


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.

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


That's not establishing a religion, so that's your incorrect opinion. It's the modern secular vogue to believe that horseshit, but it doesn't change the meaning or intent of the amendment.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2011
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.
Bad decisions come from a lack of knowledge, or an inability to identify reality.
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.
No, I understand it well. And it's not evasion. It speaks directly to your point, you simply don't like it.

Sorry I challenged you. You apparently cannot understand simple concepts. That is why I .suggested you get help.
Don't take my word for it. Ask an expert, they'll agree with me. Your ignorance on this topic is astounding.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2011
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.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2011
So, you can't say anything about religion in school? Careful...
No, you simply can't teach religion as fact.
There is in fact no such visible line. I dare you people to cross it all the same.
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?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2011
Bad decisions come from a lack of knowledge, or an inability to identify reality.


Indeed they do. Why is it that you can't identify the reality that the opposition isn't swayed by your arguments, and that they have the RIGHT to be wrong.

Is it your assertion that anyone not "scientifically right" be excluded from every aspect of public life?
Modernmystic
1.1 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2011
No, you simply can't teach religion as fact.


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

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.


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.

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?


That would be a good way to invalidate the theory wouldn't it?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2011
No, you simply can't teach religion as fact.
Of course you can teach facts about religion. You learned nothing about religion in school?
And that would be an example of a BS evasion, strawman as well.

I said you cannot teach religion as fact. That is not the same as teaching fact about religion, ie: the Iconoclast can be taught, spontaneous divine generation cannot.
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.
We're going to devote an entire year of medical school to Phrenology and Homeopathy. Happy with that? Happy paying for it?
That would be a good way to invalidate the theory wouldn't it?
There's no reason to do it, beyond that, it's rather gruesome, no?

leftfield
5 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2011
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.


And it's also freedom from religion. There's a wall of separation between the church and state.

Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802 reads: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Even original Constitutionalists normally accept this because they believe that the Constitution must be interpreted as it was intended. And in this case, a founding father clarified the first amendment so there is no ambiguity.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2011
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?
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2011
We're going to devote an entire year of medical school to Phrenology and Homeopathy. Happy with that? Happy paying for it?


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

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


No more gruesome than cutting up pigs or frogs. And the reason to do it is to prove it can't be done. 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.

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.
leftfield
5 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2011
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.


No, it's not fine to teach creationism. There is young Earth creationism, old Earth creationism, as well as variants espoused by various Christian sects. This is not to mention that there are hundreds of creation stories by other religions. If teachers are forced to teach creationism, they have to stick to a particular variant or it would be impossible to teach. And then it would be a question of which religion teachers should establish in school.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2011
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?


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.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.9 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2011
Neither you or I pay for medical school unless we're attending AFAIK. Try again.
You certainly will pay for it if he ends up being your doctor.
No more gruesome than cutting up pigs or frogs.
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?
We'd demonstrate that you can't make women out of ribs.
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?
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.

You're not arguing your point. If someone isn't going to reason, giving them outlets to further not reason will not benefit them, it will merely detract from those who can reason.
The world needs garbagemen too, but they don't need creationists.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2011
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.
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?
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2011
You certainly will pay for it if he ends up
being your doctor.


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

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?


I assumed you meant a cadaver.

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.

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


It doesn't need nuclear reactors either, nor garbage men when you get right down to it. It's simply not UP TO YOU what the world needs or doesn't...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2011
Is that the argument you'd like to use for promoting the healthcare laws?


It isn't an argument, it is what it is...period. It doesn't need arguing, it's the truth.

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


Don't make it mandated that kids are taught things their parents find, not only objectionable, but completely against the core of what they believe.

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?


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

The main point is that as long as you aren't footing the entire bill, it's irrelevant what you as an individual think is education or not. Simple as that. I'm not saying I consider creationism education, I'm saying it doesn't matter what I think on that issue.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2011
He wouldn't be my doctor. Getting the point now?
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.
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.
You're no longer worth talking to on this topic.
Simple as that. I'm not saying I consider creationism education, I'm saying it doesn't matter what I think on that issue.
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.
SteveL
5 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2011
"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?
frajo
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2011
idiocy goes away
So why are horoscopes still a business after thousands of years?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2011
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.


It's an inapplicable analogy then.

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


No, you just don't want to hear you're wrong.

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.


There is no objective definition of education. So your "this can't be taught in schools" attitude is irrelevant.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2011
"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?


Because some of you are still under the delusion that because you think you have some objective meter of what to teach other people's kids then that's the way it SHOULD be done. I'm saying you don't, I'm saying I don't.

I'm saying it's as stupid to get freaked out by teaching creationism in school as it is to believe in it.
ShotmanMaslo
3.3 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2011
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?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2011
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?


Yes I do, it's just that you're full of shit...

:-)

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.

The word is TAUGHT, not teached...apparently they not only didn't teach theories of abogenesis in your school but English wasn't high on the list either.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2011
Theories of abiogenesis ARE taught. I remember in biology class they said it was "lightning" that did it.
You mean they taught you the Miller-Urey experiment...
I'm saying it's as stupid to get freaked out by teaching creationism in school as it is to believe in it.
You've been given multiple analogies, examples of maleducation, you've relented on your viewpoint, and changed it several times to try to resurrect your argument.

Sorry, you're wrong and I certainly hope you don't have any impact on the educational system going forward.

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.

ShotmanMaslo
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2011

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.


If they are taught, they are taught only as an unproven hypotheses, and often alongside other possibilites, even creationism. I remember being taught about abiogenesis, creationism and panspermia as different views on the origin of life, not as facts.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2011
You mean they taught you the Miller-Urey experiment...


They mentioned the experiment, then said this PROVED it was lightning. 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. Amino acids do not a cell make.

But hey it was "education" because it didn't mention God...

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.


Define OVERT...I dare you. 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. This is far from my last statement on the topic.

Skultch
5 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2011
It doesn't matter if these things are philosophically objective. It only matters that they are pragmatically objective. We have a body of knowledge and a scientific community that is overwhelmingly respected because that WORKS. If we ignored that, 98% of us on these boards would be surfs, and the internet would not exist because Maxwell would have been drowned out. You would not have survived if you took this advocacy into your daily life.

MM, your ideology here is pure silliness. I suggest you get your head out of the philo sand and direct your priorities more towards pragmatic things.

Anyone: What's the word for someone who does not believe in the value of progress?
ShotmanMaslo
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2011
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. If scientific consensus is against their beliefs, they just have to deal with it. All they can do is present their view too, and let the child decide.
Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2011
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.


Show me where I said that...

Skultch, I'd love to get my head out of the philosophical sand, the problem is that there are too many assholes in this world that think that science is the answer to EVERYTHING...*wrong*.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2011
What's the word for someone who does not believe in the value of progress?
Fundamentalist, Regressivist, luddite, primitivist, usually nothing good.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2011
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?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2011
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?
CincyBio
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2011
Wow Joefarah, do you really think we understand more about the spiritual world and creationism than we do about science and technology? We have ample experimental support for evolution and natural selection. There is absolutely no experimental evidence supporting the creationist's perspective--and the people who think that there is evidence of creationism do not understand the word 'evidence,' nor do they understand science or experimentation.
The idea that only 28 percent of high school biology teachers implement evolutionary theory in their curriculum is disgusting! This is why our country legs behind the rest of the world in almost every quality other than ignorance, arrogance, and fossil fuel dependency. You idiots make me want to kill myself, but I'll just wait until you kill the whole world with your dirty energy. Excuse me while I go vomit at the idea of how embarrassingly low our nation's average IQ is.
FloydPinkerton
5 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2011
@MM

Someone who believes that a guy fathered himself in order to send himself to Earth in order to kill himself in order to appease himself for the very sins to which he himself convicted mankind as retribution for having fallen for a trick effected through the agency of a magic tree via a talking snake should pay a price for such beliefs (like people who believe Elvis is still alive) and should not get to tell the rest of us what is appropriate to teach our children, let alone the next generation. They should be ridiculed and laughed at for belief in the absurd, not respected.

Recently your arguments have become as incoherent as they are ultimately futile, and you conveniently refuse to address others' retorts. Perhaps working with the Templeton Foundation or Answers in Genesis would be a good opportunity for you, as they promote the exact same tactics when arguing in public forums on this subject.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2011
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.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2011
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.
Skepticus
4 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2011
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.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2011
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.


Well that's certainly one opinion.

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...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2011
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.


Indeed! Let's muzzle them all and put them in camps! The bastards...
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (17) Feb 02, 2011
The education of children is not a private concern, MM, it's an issue of public concern. What your children learn and come to believe is true through the influence of their teachers (and yes, through your influence as well) has direct and indirect impacts on every other person in your society, and this is especially the case in a basically democratic and "free" society, however you want to define the term "free." This means that education is an issue of Public Welfare, and that is something the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to promote. The Necessary and Proper clause grants both States and the Feds the authority to set up public schools, and the 1st and 14th Amendments prohibit public schools run by either the States or the Feds from advocating religious belief unless there are independent (i.e. non-religious) reasons for believing it.
Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2011
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.
Thrasymachus
3.1 / 5 (17) Feb 02, 2011
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's the opposite of an opinion. That's like 1+1=2. Things that are public are things that are accessible to or affect groups of people. Things that are private are things that are accessible to or affect an individual alone.

But more than that, I've given you concrete reasons for thinking that education is a public issue, namely its effects on everybody. You have given no reason at all for thinking that education is a private issue alone, and instead have merely denigrated the opposing view, and accused them of moral overreach, a charge which would only be true if your opinion were true. So give some reason for thinking your view should be true, aside from the fact that you would prefer it.
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2011
I'm sorry thras I don't HAVE to give you a rationale for my opinion that parents should be very involved in their child's education. Take it or leave it, I honestly, truly don't give a shit.

The fact that you do have some bullshit rationalization for yours that makes you feel better doesn't make it more valid OR objective. You can make EVERYTHING (including human beings themselves) into a "public goods" if you spew enough platitudes or hypotheticals. In the end it's all self delusional bullshit, you have your worldview and I have mine.
Skultch
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2011
.... that parents should be very involved in their child's education.


And now we'll play, "Name...That...Fallacy!!!"

"hhhrrraaahhhh! says the crowd."

"What's the prize this week, Bob?"

"Well, Glen; this week's lucky winner gets a......... FREE TRIP TO HAWAII !!!!"

"HHHHHHRRRRRRAAAAAAAA!!!!" cheers the crowd.
Skultch
4.3 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2011
there are too many assholes in this world that think that science is the answer to EVERYTHING...*wrong*.


You're right. It's the only answer to anything. Everything else is just a guess and/or a naturally selected reaction. Are we going to talk about solipsism now?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2011
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 think you should jsut have a think on this issue and take a little time to determine what your actual stance is.
Thrasymachus
2.5 / 5 (16) Feb 02, 2011
I'm not saying parents shouldn't be very involved with their children's education MM. I'm saying everybody else should be very involved with and concerned about everybody else's children's education as well, because the quality of that education will have profound effects upon them and their children. Stuff that everybody should be concerned about is about the simplest and most common-sensical definition of "public" as one could ask for, and it clearly means something Constitutionally, because the Constitution explicitly charges Congress with the promotion of its welfare.

You're simply wrong on the Constitutional argument, and if you're trying to make a philosophical argument that the Constitution is in error for allowing it, then make the argument, don't just insist there is one and demand your imaginary argument be treated with greater respect than the actually articulated, valid and sound arguments should be.
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2011
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 no such thing. I'm saying they should have the freedom to determine how their children are educated.

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


No you're saying that everyone who agrees with you about how children should be educated should be involved in the education of every child of those who you don't agree with.

If you meant what you said literally I challenge you to donate some money to a Catholic boarding school.
Thrasymachus
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2011
Don't tell me what I'm saying, I know perfectly well what I'm saying. I'm saying that public education, that is, education funded by the government through taxes, is Constitutional, for the reasons I gave you above. I'm also saying that public schools and education systems are government programs, and that the Constitution and legal precedent pretty clearly forbid government programs from advocating religious belief or requiring religious expression.

I'd actually be pretty happy with a forum where I, or a representative of mine, could sit down with others and figure out how to deal with issues that concern us all, and where the decisions we come to would be binding. Oh wait...
CincyBio
5 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2011
MM, we don't want only those people that agree with Thras, or me, or any one person in particular, to be involved in the education the children of our nation; rather, we'd like everyone to be involved in the process. And in this country we handle such constitutional issues with voting, and the majority vote wins.
As for the issue of donating to a catholic boarding school, the majority of citizens in our nation don't currently feel as though it would be wise for our government, or anyone, to invest in such organizations; and I, and likely Thra, fall into that majority category. 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. I've seen religion-based misunderstanding hinder the academic progress of many students, as those students typically have little exposure to logic or reason growing up.
Skepticus
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2011
What a depressing thread. Change a few labels, and I could believe I am reading and commenting comments from fundamentalist mullahs and clerics. America's IQ has just dropped another 50 points. And so many are quite happy with it. Congenital fault with logics must be a common trait of Abrahamic religions.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2011
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?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2011
dogbert
Now notice the part about congress making no law and the part about not prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Now go the post you wrote that I replied to. I have a copy of the Constitution already. I have read it. YOU however sure messed up something in that post of yours. You appeared to be claiming that Frajo was demanding that religion be crammed down the throats of public school students.

Public funded schools do NOT have the right to ram religion down people's throat. Since Frajo was suggesting that that should be the way things are done I don't see what you were yammering about.

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.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2011
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.

more
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2011
I have noticed that Modernmystic AND ,to a lesser extent, SH BOTH have a tendency to engage in STUPID arguments NEITHER believes in just because someone said something about religion that turned off their brains and engaged their fingers somehow inducing them to make remarks that neither would agree with if they had been written by someone else.

There is NOTHING wrong about teaching students about Creationism. As long as it is a comparative religions class because it definitely isn't science. Teaching it in a science class is nothing but an attempt to ram religion into public schools and the Wedge Document makes that quite clear if anyone was stupid enough to not figure it on their own.

Unfortunately the people that are trying to force Creationism into public schools would be even more incensed if their beliefs were subjected to comparisons with other religions. So it is unlikely that Creationism can ever be taught in public US high schools.

Ethelred
Mayor__Dooley
5 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2011
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.
Creationism deserves no A or O.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2011
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.


There's no logical disconnect. 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.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2011
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.


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...
ShotmanMaslo
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2011
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.
dogbert
1 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2011
Ethelred,
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.


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".

dogbert
1 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2011
Ethelred continued ...

I continue to be surprised [though I should be getting used to it], that the portion of the U.S. constitution which prevents the 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. The "no law" phrase in the first amendment prevents forever such a state religion -- unless the attacks on the first amendment are successful.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2011
There's nothing wrong with learning from failures as long as they are ACKNOWLEDGED as failures.
And there is nothing wrong with calling an experiment where you learned positive things a success. Which is the case in the Miller experiment. Calling a failure is denying that anything was learned.
This experiment was touted as a SUCCESS.
And why should it not? They learned you could create amino acids that way.
Edison didn't get any kudos for building something that didn't light up when you threw the switch.
Correct. Negative information is useful. So is positive and usually more so. So you had a logical disconnect and after it was pointed out you refuse accept it. Well you have logical disconnect on this due to you simply wrong about the Miller experiment. It was successful.
difference between teaching it and reading Dr. Seuss to the class
Bullshit. Dr. Seuss is labeled as fiction from the start. AND it too has no business in a science course.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2011
1) A school is not the federal government.
It is PAID for by the Feds and thus spending money on schools by the feds to establish YOUR religion is unconstitutional.
A paid or unpaid employee on the clock or off the clock is not the federal government.
You obviously are pretending that Separation of Church and State is not the purpose of the Amendment despite the Supreme Court and the people amendment making it clear what it's purpose was.
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".
They are not teaching children that cannot leave the classrooms. The Supreme Court has been fairly clear on religion in the classrooms. You can even have a religious based club in schools AFTER school AND if the club isn't turned in a something students must be a part of.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2011
federal government from establishing a state religion is attacked most strongly by atheists.
I continue to surprised by the amount of DoubleSpeak you engage in.
I don't understand why atheists want to change the constitution to allow the creation of a state religion.
They don't.Why do you keep lying about it?
I certainly do not want a state religion and I appreciate the first amendment's prohibition against any law to that effect
Then start supporting it. Stop trying to undermine it with one duplicitous post after another.
No state religion can be established unless there is a law passed to establish such a religion
Which is against the Constitution AND that is a bogus statement in any case. The Amendment was keep Church and State separate.
prevents forever such a state religion -- unless the attacks on the first amendment are successful
So quit attacking it. Lying like this is simply another attack by you.

Ethelred
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (17) Feb 03, 2011
Ethelred ,
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 and the expression of religion, 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.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2011
As I said, I do not understand why you want to allow the regulation of religious expression
I don't understand why you think that putting religion in schools can be anything but unconstitutional.
When you say the first amendment does not count,
I said no such a thing.
and we can have laws respecting the establishment of religion a
The first amendment is the only one I know of. You can't push your religion on the Federal dollar.
you negate the reason for the first amendment which was to prevent the formation of a state religion.
Lie. YOU are the one trying to jam your religion into public schools and THAT IS unconstitutional. Can the DoubleSpeak.
Your answer, like all such answers, is inadequate.
I suppose that means it goes against your religious belief that you should force your religion on students.

More of the reply to the lying troll to come
Yes I have had enough lies.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2011
I understand that you are so against the expression of religion
Lie. You can express your religion just fine. In public. Even on school grounds IF no one has to listen to you. IF you force students to listen to you then you are breaking the Constitution.
that you will risk the establishment of a state religion.
I see. By not allowing YOU to force YOUR religion on students I am magically establishing a state religion. Do you eat with those same lying fingers?
Not wise, but deprecating the first amendment is ipso facto, unwise.
Then quit doing it.

I am really getting tired of the way you are just plain lying on this. I have NEVER said anything anyone could honestly construe as trying to use the government to push a religion. Really hard to do that even I wanted to since I don't HAVE a religion.

Why do you keep telling the same blatant lie? Do you really think no one is going to notice that you are lying?

Ethelred
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2011
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.


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.
CincyBio
5 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2011
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?


Wow, what a question. YES! American schools are very different from that of other countries... Check out our standardized test scores for F sakes; they make us look damn-near uneducated when considering the resources we have! Apparently 72 percent of our high school biology teachers are damn-near uneducated as well.
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.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2011
And there is nothing wrong with calling an experiment where you learned positive things a success.


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.

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


As successful as Edison trying to light a bulb with a filament of cat shit rather than a carbonized bamboo filament. Yes it made amino acids, so what? Amino acids are found everywhere...

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.

CincyBio
5 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2011
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...


Dr. Seuss is not taught as factual reality moron! Do you even know what logic means? There's no problem with teaching religion in the historical context of it's impact on the worlds culture and society--after all, just about every major war you could ever think of was due to some type of ignorent religious disput. The problem is when you start teaching a religious/creationist answer to a scientific question, like 'Did life evolve?' or 'How did life evolve?'. It's like trying to answer a math question with an opinion. Don't try to tell me your opinion plays a role in simple arithmetic, or any higher order math for that matter; that's why math, and science, are universal 'languages'. You don't see anyone arguing about whether or not to teach algebra in high schools.
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2011
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.
CincyBio
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2011
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!
CincyBio
4 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2011
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!


Not to mention, I think you just tore down your own argument pretty well. Thanks for coming around and seeing the logical perspective.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2011
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?
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2011
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.
CincyBio
5 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2011
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?


I'm talking about any religious perspective being portrayed as fact; that is wrong. Religion is an opinion and nothing more. Children's minds are very malleable, and to portray opinion to a child is as fact is imoral, unethical, and a basic example of brain-washing; it's almost the worst conceivable way to take advantage of a child.

And when did I start reading what comments? This thread specifically or comments on this website in general? The answer to both questions is: 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.
CincyBio
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2011
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.


Well sure, there are many ways to look at it depending on the parties involved. If you're asking, for example, why someone like the USA is in Iraq right now, then yes, that is due to economical incentive (and Bush trying to finish his dad's war). But if your asking, for example, why the main parties involved are waring over the 'holy land' I'd say it has something to do with the 'holy land'. And that war has been going on since people began telling stories about the the history of that area.

Also, economical disputes can have religious roots as well. A simple economical dispute could be solved by the two parties merging and sharing their economies if they agreed on everything else.
ShotmanMaslo
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2011
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...


We already do. You can choose your childs diet, clothes, car (safety regulations) and media only to a limited extent. When your choice violates the opinion of experts on what is good for the child and what is not, you can go to prison for child abuse.

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


No, it does not give them the right to interfere with their childs education inappropiatelly. Regardless of your opinion, it is illegal to do it.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2011
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?
CincyBio
5 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2011
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.


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

Anyway, we are not discussing abiogenisis. We are discussing evolution. To a make an irrelevant point, regardless of how valid it may be (though, yours was not valid), does not contribute to your side of the argument. 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.
ShotmanMaslo
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2011
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.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2011
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.


Who determines what the child should know? What I proposed is EXACTLY what you and your ilk want. For the State to be God in essence and determine everything from our core beliefs to how many grams of salt we're allowed with each meal...if any.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2011
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...
frajo
3.3 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2011
I'm talking about any religious perspective being portrayed as fact
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?
If you haven't recognized the BS yet, just keep attending, it's hard to miss.
Are you assuming I'm attending church?
when did I start reading what comments?
...
yesterday around the time of my first post
Nevertheless you are assuming to know the various positions of other users who have been discussing here months and years before you?
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.
You assume your expert knowledge is missing in this discussion?
And, btw, you assume Modernmystic to be a Creationist?
Are you a poser?
ShotmanMaslo
4 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2011
Modernmystic:

State should NOT determine what would the children learn in public schools during science classes.

Religion authorities should NOT determine what would the children learn in public schools during science classes.

Parents should NOT determine what would the children learn in public schools during science classes.

SCIENTISTS working in the relevant field and pedagogists should determine what would the children learn in public schools during science classes!

Parents should determine what would the children learn or do AT HOME.

Religious authorities should determine what would the children learn or do in church.

Is it really that hard to comprehend?
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (17) Feb 03, 2011
"Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free expression [of religion]" This doesn't mean Congress cannot make laws prohibiting any expression of religion. Otherwise, no law would be worth anything, since someone could say they were simply expressing their religion when they violated it. Murder? nope, ritual human sacrifice. Identity theft? nope, an homage to the god of Chaos. Free expression is an expression that doesn't cost you or anybody else anything to do it. Demanding your religious creation myth be treated as "science" in a science class is imposing large costs on others.

And as for dogbert's insinuation that science is just another kind of religion, it's quite simply false.
Gawad
5 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2011
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.
I'd second that!

Now, MM makes the important point that it's every parent's right to decide on their child's education. I'd rather say it's incumbent help shape it. Not just a right, but a responsibility as well.

However, we run into a problem when what parents wish their children *be taught*-based on their faith-conflicts with evidence based content. While I still think they should have a say in how the overall curriculum is shaped, no matter how strongly they 'believe', how can they be said to have a 'right' to pass off faith based beliefs as fact? They have to live with the fact that context matters and you don't get pick it. Otherwise, they'd be intellectually crippling their children, who are also persons who have a right not to have that done to them. Creationism belongs in Religion 101.
ShotmanMaslo
4 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2011
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.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2011
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.


"It" did no such thing, well it DID, but it was pointless to prove. We've found amino acids in asteroids. I guess I missed the part where asteroids have weather systems and lightning. The experiment was (in retrospect) a pointless exercise and proved nothing relevant.

Yes my teacher did mess up, but I didn't realize it until years later.

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.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2011
Demanding your religious creation myth be treated as "science" in a science class is imposing large costs on others.


Were you talking to me? If not apologies for the response:

It's not MY creation myth. I don't believe it literally. I never said that I thought it should be included in science class. In fact I think it should be excluded from science class. I just don't think it's fair for me to make that decision for everyone else paying for the system.

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.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2011
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.
Also a critical point. I don't know exactly how this works in the States, but my sister teaches in high school here, north of the 49th. Depending on who is available on staff and who is on long term leave she may be asked to teach a number of subjects even though her expertise (1st degree) is in English. Student teachers get to see the basics in a number of subjects over the course of their teaching degree, but few will become experts in any topic other than their primary degree. When asked to handle a class in a technical subject such as biology, math, chem and physics this can definitely become a problem with topics involving important nuances and subtleties, exactly as is the case with evolution. And if they don't understand them clearly, they could certainly be 'reluctant to endorse' them.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 03, 2011
The people who pay for public education are the various state and local GOVERNMENTS, not its PEOPLE. Once the people's money has been taxed, it's not theirs anymore, it's their government's, and governments are restricted in how they spend their money by the 1st and 14th Amendments. Government buys buildings and hires teachers to teach. It tells parents, "Your kids have to go to school, under penalty up to and including removing said kids from your guardianship." It says, "You have a choice of schools to send your kids to, you can pay for your own private school, or you can send your kids to this school we've already set up, we don't charge. You can even fill out some paperwork and take some tests and teach your kids yourself." It is within Constitutional authority for State, Local and Federal governments to do and say all those things. But it is a violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments if any school set up in that way teaches religious belief.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2011
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.
Seems more like a question of just say no than fiat and force in this case. For parents that object so strenuously, home schooling remains an option AFAIK, in the States as it does in Canada, though even home schooled kids have to meet minimal state set standards. Unless it come to the point where what they are home schooled constitutes child abuse, then yes, it may come to fiat and force.

Parents should have every right to petition, complain, protest, and otherwise influence the content of public education, but NOT have a final say. If Ontario Hydro decides to build a new CANDU reactor, those who pay for the service don't get final say on the blueprints or technical specs.
CincyBio
5 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2011
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?...
CincyBio
2.3 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2011
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...


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.?
ShotmanMaslo
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2011
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.


No, it definitely should not. Paying for education, just like giving birth to a child, does not make anyone qualified to know what needs to be taught in science class.
Science is not democracy or anarchy. It is dictatorship of facts and scientists.
CincyBio
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2011
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.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2011
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.
CincyBio
2 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2011
This is my last comment, and I will not be revisiting this site; I hate that I've wasted so much of the last 30 hours attempting to explain things to people who've never bothered to educate themselves. Abiogenisis is not the topic, but know that the formation of amino acids is only a small part of one of the hypotheses addressing the idea. The 'RNA world' is another hypothesis, which involves little bits of RNA folding back upon themselves to form active sites where other nucleotides can bind, be combined, and be cleaved at specific sequences--essentially enabling these RNA strands to reproduce themselves. There is evidence for this as well. Anyway, ignorance is bliss, which is why I'm clinically depressed, and why MM and frajo are likely smiling as they read this. 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.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2011
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.


I could say the opposite of you. Did you have a point?

Amino acids were not plentiful before they existed idiot!


I never said they were. I said they were plentiful before they were created here on Earth, and I'm right. They exist on asteroids you fucking moron.

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


Amino acids do not require electricity to form. You sir, haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

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


*snicker* Take your pick, none of them seem to be helping you at the moment.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 03, 2011
Ethelred,
You made two consecutive posts as while back (wish physorg numbered comments). 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, particularly if there is a school involved. 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. Therefore, it prohibits regulating 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.
CincyBio
2 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2011
O.K., I lied. This is your final science lesson MM. The formation of amino acids requires some form of activation energy. They do not form readily without this. Electrical-energy from lightning is the most likely original source of this activation energy on Earth. 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... it's just what ended up happening after 750 million years of violent turbulence and kinetic energy (4.55 billion - 3.8 billion = 750 million). You will have to become a scientist if you wish to stand a chance in an argument with a scientist.
dogbert
1 / 5 (14) Feb 03, 2011
Ethelred continued ...,
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.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (18) Feb 03, 2011
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? What religion is favored or disadvantaged by requiring the basic tenets of evolution be taught in biology and science classes?
dogbert
1 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2011
Thrasymachus,
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?

The first amendment states:
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.


If we allow government to regulate religion (which requires innumerable laws and regulations), we have ignored the first amendments prohibitions against that, thus rendering the first amendment void. The first amendment's prohibitions protect us from a state religion (which requires a law and regulations to form).

How is this hard to understand?
dogbert
1 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2011
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.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (18) Feb 03, 2011
The First Amendment does not mean, nor does it say that Congress shall make no law regulating religion or religious expression. The first part forbids Congress from setting up a state religion, or throwing its support behind an extant religion, say, by recognizing its existence. The second part says there can't be any prohibitions of the "free exercise" of religion. The "free exercise" of religion are those practices one can perform at no cost to oneself or others. It doesn't mean there can't be any prohibition of any exercise of religion, because nothing could then be criminalized. Since the first clause prevents Congress from saying what is and isn't a religion, then you could claim that armed robbery was one of the sacraments of your faith, and then the State's law against armed robbery would violate the 1st Amendment. The State has the Constitutional authority to regulate exercises of religion which impinge upon the rights and welfare of others.
Thrasymachus
3.2 / 5 (18) Feb 03, 2011
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.


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?
Bog_Mire
4 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2011
Tell ya what - the kids will keep on figuring the most likely truth for themselves; just as they have been for decades. Some poor suckers will be hoodwinked and fall for creationist bs, but thats life. I was one who was force fed creationism, and I saw the light on my own. At the end of the day our logical thinking monkey derived brains instinctively go for the choice that the evidence backs up. Its a matter of survival and adaptation.
Godbert, I recommend you go back to your original post and reread what you have said from there. You have severely confused and contradicted yourself over and over. Are you aware of this or are you being deliberately obtuse? You seem fairly intelligent on most other matters.
freethinking
1.1 / 5 (14) Feb 03, 2011
It comes down to what people believe. Do you believe it is the parents rights and responsiblity to raise and educate their own children with the state helping them in the form of public education, or do you believe that it is the states right and responsibiltiy to raise and educate peoples children, with parents assisting.

I'm in the first category. I have the most invested in my kids future and I care more for my kids future than any government bureaucrat ever will. Therefore I should have the right to teach or not teach my kids what I think they should be taught. Government teachers are to help me teach, not the other way around.

Simply put, Progressives believe kids and parents and all people belong to and serve the government. Conservatives believe the government is to serve people with people controlling the government.
Thrasymachus
2.9 / 5 (19) Feb 03, 2011
Nice false dichotomy there free. It actually doesn't come down to belief at all. It comes down to whether the government has the Constitutional authority to establish public schools and mandate primary and secondary education. They do. It also comes down to whether their public schools, being an agency of the government that set them up, are restricted in their activities in the same ways and for the same reasons the government generally is, i.e. not advocating or requiring religious belief. They are. If you want your kids taught Creationism, send 'em to a private school or fill out the forms and home-school 'em. And congratulations on making the future a little more fanatical and a little less reasonable.
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2011
To those arguing against evolution being taught in schools, seriously?

Evolution has overwhelming evidence, even if you are ignorant enough to ignore the evidence, the class is called science, where people go to learn what is considered science. Should we start teaching science in your religious classes? I bet you wouldn't like that, so keep your out there beliefs away from the science class.

It would be like my old math teacher bringing pieces of art instead of equations into the class, bafflingly off topic.

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.
Thrasymachus
3.1 / 5 (21) Feb 03, 2011
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.
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2011

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 close to finding out, might be moving to America in the next year or so :]

I literally can't do anything apart from totally agree with you, it's a shame... in an ideal world I would be able to disagree with you, but for now ignorance is kind of prevailing, or at least it seems that way.
SoulmanOtto
4 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2011
For the folks that fetishize the Constitution
Fetishize... Perhaps mythologize or instatuate, or imbeciliate would be more exactaroneous nomenclatures in usage.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (17) Feb 04, 2011
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetishize

Please direct your attention on that site to the first known usage. Perhaps you would like to reconsider your insinuation that I am engaging in unwarranted neologisms?
frajo
4 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2011
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.
Obviously this was written by a law professional, also known as sophist. They made a living in ancient Athens by giving lessons about how to use rhetorics to achieve power regardless of truth and justice.
This is a nice text specimen trying to argue that the meaning of a certain amendment part is the opposite of its words.
Skepticus
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2011
All these heated arguments boiled down to three concepts: knowledge, belief and integrity. knowledge is infinite, belief is fallible, and intergity is cultivable. Science practitioners at least have the honesty of acknowledging their knowledge of the universe is a work in progress, most likely never will be complete, but always strives forward to refine and accumulating the new, while discarding the obsolete and the erroneous. We have benefited from this practical approach in so many fields that I's care to try to list them. While it is true that some Scientists held their own wacky beliefs that fly in the face of evidences - which shows their lack of integrity and the truthfulness to themselves and others - Creationists and Religionists are pathologically arrogant, closed-minded and dishonest. How? They are arrogant because they take fables invented from the dawn of humanity, then recycled, re-conditioned, re-painted them as facts, truth and knowledge.
frajo
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2011
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).
Skepticus
1.5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2011
Cont.
The "knowledge-Words of God" is complete, The Truth. How dare the lowly humans is to conflict with God's words? The Belief is Infallible.Case is closed! All human need to do is believe in and pass The Words, procreate, eat, shit and die!
While silently reaping the benefits that science brings, like modern comforts, transportation, advanced medical remedies, new means of communication to survive and spread their idiocy, Creationists and Religionists vigorously reinterpreted, questioned, and bend scientific facts to fit their obsolete view. Laws should be passed to forbid these parasitic, dishonest back-stabbers lowlives who deny science from the benefits that science brought. We persecute traitors, don't we? They can all die with religious texts in their hands for all I care. Rot in peace!
Skepticus
1.5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2011
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).


Frajo,
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?
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2011
Dishonesty covers a lot of human undertaking, I don't mean to blanket them all.
Then why do you do so?
While religious persons may be totally saints in many endevors, I DO mean dishonesty of what they believe
Believing something is dishonest?
and what they actually benefited from science while back-stabbing science.
Who was/is back-stabbing science? Believers in general?
Clear enough?
Not at all. You indulge in generalizations and avoid to become specific.
You pretend to be deducing (from the set of all believers to every single believer) but succumb to the logical fallacy of inducing (from the subset of Creationists to the set of all believers).
Skepticus
1 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2011
Frajo,

Do I have to repeat myself thatI despise believers of God and deniers of Science but parasiting on the benefit of science brings?
Are you splitting hairs as a job? You cut "While religious persons may be totally saints in many endevors, I DO mean dishonesty of what they believe " from "and what they actually benefited from science while back-stabbing science. " It should be obvious that the two parts are meant to be read as one sentence. Talk about taking things out of context, and question me superfluous questions.
Put it this way: You, your family, your community are God-fearing Bible totters, protest evolution and science on Sunday on Physorg, then on Monday you take your child with fatal genetic and congenital defects to hospital to be helped with the most advanced science can have, while you and the whole commuity pray (to the doctors, or God??, you tell me).

Talk about duplicity, obfucation and hypocisy.
How much clearer do you need?
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2011
. I was taught since it made amino acids it made life.
The experimenters made no such claim. They are not responsible for someone else making false claims. Their experiment does not become a failure because someone else can't read.
Yes it made amino acids, so what? Amino acids are found everywhere...
Now. Not when the experiment was run 1952. Mostly it made tar but it made many kinds of amino acids. Not all 22 kinds that life on Earth uses.

httpDELETEME://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

Neither does an experiment which produces amino acids have any business being touted as evidence for abiogenesis in a science course.
So who is doing that? It is evidence that abiogenesis may have been possible. Further experiments have increased the odds by finding more kinds of organic chemicals being formed from non-organic chemicals.

Showing that abiogenesis is possible is about the most we can reasonably expect. The evidence has likely all been eaten.

Ethelred
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2011
Thrasymachus,
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?


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.

If you say that the first amendment does not mean what it says, you make it void. If it is void and we can make laws respecting religion and the exercise of religion, then we open the door to laws which create a state religion. Dispensing with the first amendment dispenses with its protection against a state religion.

Again, I fail to understand why those attacking religion prefer to open the pathway to a state religion.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2011
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 actually overturned a decision at the loacl school board using this method. I told them we'd have to teach all the creation myths, then I rattled off a few of the more vulgar ones. They limited it to the top five most popular. Christian creationism doesn't make that list unless you consider Muslim creationism to be the same story (which they didn't). To save face they removed the entire creationism/ID nonsense entirely.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2011
I'm becoming so frustrated with everyone's ignorance on the topic that I'm mistyping things.
Nonsense. For one you have the word 'everyone's' in that sentence and that is not merely hyperbole. It is plain wrong. For another YOU have been huffy with people that actually do have a clue. The attitude you showed is the reason they are pushing back at you.

More importantly you have become angry. I take it you are not experienced in on-line discussions. So here are some tips.

DO NOT post while angry.

Don't take things personally. No one here knows you. Only people that know you can get personal.

No one here knows you. No one gives a damn if you CLAIM you have PhD. Lying about qualifications is a frequent event. I am not claiming that you are lying just pointing that we do not know if you are or are not. We can only go on your behavior EVEN if you are foolish enough to give your real name. Over time you can establish a reputation.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2011
The only way a rational person can lose an argument on the web is by losing his or her temper. Otherwise the worst that can happen is that you will learn something.

Technical aspects.

Don't write in the comment box. Use a text editor. Reread what you wrote before posting it. I recommend Notepad++ as it has a spell check, macros AND a character count. I created a macro for quoting people and now I don't have that unclosed quote problem. [ q ] Control V [ / q ] without the spaces.

httpDELETEME://notepad-plus-plus.org/

Notice that the site is making a links a pain. You have to break them up or the filter will stop you from posting.

Thank you for joining the site.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2011
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.
Never mind my previous two posts.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Or learn some self control. That would be the wiser choice.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2011
On those posts you called me a liar seven times and a troll once.
Well if you don't like the truth stop doing it.
This is typical for liberals.
That is typical for RightWingNuts of the Religious Variant.
When unable to support their arguments, they resort to personal insult -- as you have done.
No. I supported myself. And you repeated the same bull as a response.
I have not lied once.
No, not once. Many times.
You do advocate regulating the expression of religion
Only when on the government dollar as it is against the Constitution.
It is not a lie to point out what you repeatedly state.
It is a lie to claim that is an attempt to put religion in schools. Which you did.
The first amendment prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free expression of religion.
Yes. But no one is trying to prohibit and it is a lie to claim that I did so. REGULATE is NOT prohibit. Freedom of speech can be regulated.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2011
The classic example is you don't have the right to scream FIRE in crowded theater. YOU have the right to say any fool thing you want but not at any time. The right to lie just like you did if you want BUT you don't have the right to use federal money to push your religion. That violates the first amendment.
When you advocate for regulating religion, you advocate for discarding the first amendment.
Bullshit. If you aren't aware of it the Supreme Court has said that you can't smoke marijuana even if it is your religion. Kind of like Satanist can't practice human sacrifice.
The first amendment prevents the establishment of a state religion (that what its purpose).
Yes. Now how about you learn what that means.
If you should succeed in dispensing with the first amendment,
I am not doing that and am I am tired of you LYING that I am doing so.

More
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2011
you will have set up a situation where a state religion could be established.
We already had that happen. In the Scopes Trial and in the run up to the Dover Trial where the Judge stopped the Creationists from using tax dollars to establish their religion.
Therefore by advocating regulation of religious expression, you advocate for removing the constitutional prohibitions which prevent the establishment of a state religion.
So you think that stopping you from spending federal taxes to push your religion in schools somehow is NOT establishing a religion. That is delusional. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when I called you a troll. If you aren't you are out of touch with reality. Liar or insane either way you are wrong.
I do understand that you want to regulate religious expression so strongly that you are willing to dispense with the first amendment's protections.
Lie. Lying like that is why I called you a liar. Delusion or lie.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2011
But it is no lie to point out that dispensing with the first amendment is requisite to establishing a state religion.
True.
I don't want that.
Lie. You are making it quite clear you want to establish YOUR religion in schools on the federal dime.

Let me put it this way.

You are either delusional or you are a classic troll. The sort that thinks things like

Lets see, how can piss everyone off today. I know, I will claim that abducting people and tyeing them up is liberating them. Then when someone points out that I lied I will accuse them of wanting to tie me up and imprison me.

You posts on this thread have every bit that bad. Lie or delusion. Which is worse?

Ethelred
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 04, 2011
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.
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. "Make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion" doesn't mean "make no law about religion." It means Congress can only make laws regulating or prohibiting expressions of religion where those expressions have a cost. The First Amendment doesn't mean "anything goes as long as you call it religion." That would make any kind of government impossible. The Constitution was written to establish a working government, not undermine the very possibility of governing. I almost can't believe I have to explain this concept, but then I remember that American conservatism is simply an unsophisticated form of anarchism.
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 04, 2011
I actually overturned a decision at the loacl school board using this method...

The major difference being that School Boards actually have the authority to decide on content in schools, whereas internet comment boards rarely do. This strategy works when there are other reasonable, though perhaps ignorant, people involved in the decision-making process. On an internet discussion board, there's nothing to be decided, and Creationist internet trolls are the very definition of unreasonable, so one has to take a different tack. But anyway, I maintain that even if it were feasible to give every religious creation myth ever devised by mankind equal time in a science class, it would still be unconstitutional for public schools to do that.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Feb 04, 2011
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.
If you can't take the heat, Mr. Scientist, get out of the primordial soup kitchen. :^)

Or how about "You can take that Phd and burn it, you ain't postin' here no more!"

O.k., sorry, that was bad. I just couldn't resist.
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2011
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.
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2011
O.K., I lied.


Yeah you do that a lot.

This is your final science lesson MM.


It won't be yours.

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


Now you're getting it.

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


It's spelled astEroids, and if you'd read any of the latest literature on the subject the most likely source is UV radiation.

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


The hell it doesn't. I'm sure there were amino acids in the universe before there was an Earth to have electrical storms on. Christ you're stupid.

There's nothing special about amino acids,


True.

and there's nothing special about life


Oh? You have evidence of this?

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


Obviously not.
otthole88
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 04, 2011
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.
Aw, youre just being pusillanalimus.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2011
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.

Someone call me?
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2011
Ethelred,
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. You will not be able to, since I have not. 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.

Liar.
FloydPinkerton
3 / 5 (2) Feb 04, 2011
Someone hid the "Please don't feed the trolls" sign here at Physorg.
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2011
MM and dogbert don't seem to be grasping what is said, that is the impression you get from reading this comment board.
MarkyMark
4 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2011
This just goes to show one reason Europe is more innovative than America in certain fields such as Biology (stem cell reasearch) and Enviromental Technology (such as advancing nuclear tech and alternative 'green' tech). Well not such a worry for me being European myself!
Ethelred
5 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2011
There you go again calling me a liar while lying about me.
Lets see, you are horrified that people don't want creationism in science classes. Thus YOU want it in science classes therefor I did not lie about you. That means you just lied again.
Please quote any statement I have ever made in favor of any religion in any school.
Why are you arguing then? Why do say I am guilty of repressing religion in schools? Trolling?
Now I point out that you are liar.
And thus lie again.
You make up lies because you cannot support your arguments.
Funny how you can't show any errors and thus Lied Yet Again LYA.
It is the liberal way to lie and attack personalities rather than debate.
LYA.
I think it is refreshing that most teachers refuse to blindly teach the official state religion.
Which is a lie as there is no state religion.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011
It is always better to let students make determination on what constitutes reality after they have been exposed to multiple possibilities
Which is YOU wanting Creationism in schools and THAT is religion as there is no evidence to support it.
Not wanting to start a huge argument here, but evolution has never been demonstrated
Lie.
People generally get upset when you challenge their religion
Are you that upset that you need to lie so much.
it is about which religion must be taught in schools and which religions may not be taught in schools
Another lie
Naturalism is the official state religion of the United States
Lie. Neither the US as a nation nor any state but Texas has a state religion. The State Religion in Texas is Football and in Texas they might teach football in science classes.
All gods are dictators. Naturalism is no different in this respect
Apparently your euphemism for science is naturalism and therefor you lied about a god being involved

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011
Personally, I don't care what students are exposed to as long as they are allowed to consider and discuss alternatives.
Carefully not using the word Creationism but clearly saying you want it anyway.
It is bad when teachers feel constrained to support a particular (state mandated) religion to the exclusion of all other belief systems.
Lying about science being a religion again.
It is also sad when the constitution is disregarded in order to promote a state system of belief.
Lying about the Constitution and science.
I keep forgetting I am insulting your religion when I fail to express adoration for Naturalism.
Another lie about science being a religion. Such a standard Creationist tactic that is highly indicative of coming from a Creationist even when in stealth mode.
I have never tried to equate religion with science, faith with evidence.
As can be seen above you do exactly that in pretending that science is a religion. So that is another lie.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011
So while you have never explicitly demanded that Creationism should be taught in science classes you have done everything but use the actual phrase. If you think it should not be in science classes you simply wouldn't be making the arguments you are about science being a religion.

Basically is come down to you looking like a Creationist that is trying to wedge your religion into science OR you are just a plain Green and Scaly Troll trying to stir up trouble.
Liar
LYA.

Of course you could be both.

Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2011
Ethelred ,

Apparently you are a troll too.

I will restate, for the record, that:
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.
frajo
5 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2011
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.
You favor the rule of the long knives? Or how else do you think to resolve disputes on what to teach in local schools?
2) Naturalism as a philosophy or theology is a religion.
Naturalism is a philosophical stance, not a theology (GR theos = god). Naturalism excludes supernatural, i.e. non-falsifiable, explanations. Thus it's not a belief system (=religion).

Ethelred calls you a liar. I think you are a trickster. You twist the law, you twist meanings, you twist words. All as means for some end you don't want to reveal.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2011
Apparently you are a troll too.
One of us is.
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.
Let me know when you are willing to say NO to religion in science classes.
2) Naturalism as a philosophy or theology is a religion.
And when you are willing to stop lying about science.
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;
It was and is intended to separate Church and State.

The free exercise of religion also consists of the freedom from religion for those not interested. This is similar to the concept where you have the freedom to swing your arms but I have the freedom not be bugged by you swinging your arms in my face. When two freedoms are in conflict regulation is a necessity.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2011
I will stop feeding the troll except, as needed, noting he is a liar and troll.
Which is Yet Another Lie. Disagreeing with a lying troll does not make me a troll. It make me a:

--

Gratuities accepted graciously.

You can tell which is the real troll by the humor. Trolls don't have any.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2011
--


What the heck happened?

That should have said

--

Or perhaps this variant might work

How about this one with spaces between components. Yes I am experimenting.

- < < Defender Of the Forum > > -

Ethelred
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 05, 2011
frajo,
You favor the rule of the long knives? Or how else do you think to resolve disputes on what to teach in local schools?

As it was done before the federal government decided to regulate religious expression -- local school boards.

It might be noted as well that U.S. education performance has declined in direct proportion to federal involvement in the school system. It is also noteworthy that the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate schools.
frajo
5 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011
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.
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast
5 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2011
Religion shouldn't be in science at schools

thread/
dogbert
1 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2011
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.
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast
5 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2011
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.
dogbert
1 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast ,
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.


I am not blaming people (haven't named a single person) and I did specify what actually needs changing. It is specifically government involvement in the school systems. Education standards and results have steadily declined in proportion to federal involvement.

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.

The Department of Education has no such control.
Thrasymachus
3.1 / 5 (19) Feb 05, 2011
Public schools are not only Constitutional, but so is mandatory primary and secondary education.

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.
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast
5 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2011
In response to Dogbert:

You blamed the government, but you haven't said what they are specifically doing wrong. Why are other countries that have government run schools doing better?

They tend to produce excellence? show me hard data, that's a massively out there claim.

Explain the specifics of what they are doing wrong was what I asked, not who should run it, you haven't listed actual reasons. Interested to find out your more in depth take on the issue.
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast
5 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2011
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.


That was very well crafted and spot on. It would be baffling if anyone tries to refute what you just said.
ShotmanMaslo
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2011
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.


The purpose of local school boards should primarily be to decide not what to teach, but how to teach it effectively. For example, local school board, parents or local community do not have the authority or qualification to decide whether evolution should be part of biology course or not. Otherwise it leads to absurdities like what happened in Kansas.
dogbert
1 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast ,

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 why it causes a problem: local boards are responsible to the community which elects them, the Department of Education has no such controls.

I identified the solution: remove the Department of Education and its regulations and return control to local boards.
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2011
but it is certain that the United States became a world leader in science and industry with schools run by local schools boards.
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.
Since the federal government became involved, education has steadily declined to the point that the U.S. is far behind many other nations.
My hypothesis says that the economical advantages of the US have been dwindling since a couple of years, the brain drain is about to inverse (or already has done so) and as a consequence the potency is thinning out on all educational levels.
dogbert
1 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2011
frajo,
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.
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 05, 2011
Those standards didn't decline in response to federal mandates. They declined in response to the spoiled Baby Boomers and their children who demanded that their child get an "A" on that paper or homework assignment. They declined and continue to decline because they are starved for funding and the pressures on teachers, including pressures from ignorant parents to teach Creationism or ID, are piled on. School Boards have increasingly been used as political jumping-off posts, and are often filled with or harassed by the worst kind of political and social extremists. The major failing of the US public education system is that it is too dependent on the local community, both in terms of funding and oversight, so huge disparities in performance arise, bad schools get worse and grab the lion's share of the spotlight and drag down averages.
dogbert
1 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2011
You are wrong, Thrasymachus.

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.

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. Schools are funded based on standardized tests scores -- so children are taught to pass the standardized tests. Knowledge takes a back seat to funding.

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

soulman
5 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2011
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast ,

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

Can you not comprehend what you read? He asked you to:
Explain the SPECIFICS of what they are doing wrong

He even repeated the request:
you haven't said what they are specifically doing wrong

So, answer the specifics.
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2011
soulman,
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 pointed out that education has declined in proportion to federal involvement in education. I even pointed out some of the deliberate things which have been required from the federal level which have worked toward poor results such as lowering standards, pressure to pass children regardless of status and funding based on test results.

What you want is just to disagree. Doesn't matter what I say or how I say it, you will just say you want to know every detail of federal interference in education for the past 50 years. Not enough characters allowed for that and I don't know everything or have the time to be your research assistant.
soulman
5 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2011
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?

Firstly, I didn't ask the original question, but I think it's a good one, which is why you keep avoiding to answer it.

Second, you're the one that's claiming that the system isn't working due to govt involvement, so you must be in a position to enumerate in some detail what those specific things are.

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.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2011
I don't know what you want other than what I gave you.
Evidence that the Feds caused the problem as opposed to the local school boards and Texas having stranglehold on the books.
I identified the problem: control taken from local boards and vested in the Department of Education.
No. You CLAIMED the problem is the Feds. The test results showing a lack of proper teaching and perhaps books is the problem. The cause of the problem can be many things. The feds have been involved in the US public education system for decades and increased its involvement after WWII which is US children finally started learning science. It was after I graduated from high school in 1969 that things started to go downhill. Less time in classes. Spending cutbacks. Foolish ideas about teaching that came from academic circles and not the Feds. Creationists and KKK members getting control of local school boards. Texas screwing the Science books.

More
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2011
Heck the book companies were screwing the science books even without Texas according to what Dr. Feynman saw going on when he was on the California textbook commission.
I identified the solution
You made one up based on false premises.

RightWingNut premises.
From your answer above, I presume you did not grow up in the 1960's?
I did and it fits.
Having lived through the '60's to present and having watched the steady decline of standards in the schools in response to federal mandates,
In response to plummeting budgets and religious interference combined with the usual gang of twits in Academic circles.
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.
You are speaking from ideology. Which has been clear since you started here despite your efforts to camouflage yourself in evasion and obfuscation.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2011
The decline began with desegregation efforts.
Looks like a hidden agenda to me. False too. Desegregation began during the Eisenhower Administration and the decline took place, in California, when Reagan became Governor. And I voted for him I am sad to say.
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.
The goal was to TEACH the children and not pretend that nothing could be done. It was undermined by the local schools.
So long as the federal government sets the standards, performance will not improve.
So long as the local school boards attempt to work around the standards instead of live up to them things will not improve.

Of course the heavy immigration of non-English speakers just might have a bit to do with the problem. Sure did in California.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2011
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?
You didn't do that. You ;pushed right wing ideology. And then gave away the dog and pony show with that bogus claim about desegregation.

Not enough characters allowed for that and I don't know everything or have the time to be your research assistant.
But plenty of time to make up stuff to push your political and religious agenda.

Ethelred
frajo
5 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2011
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?
My age doesn't matter as I'm only an external observer to the US. I grew up on both sides of the iron curtain in Europe, so while I don't have any personal experience with US education I do have experience with more than one education system and I have been exposed to more than one ideological system. Perhaps that explains a certain sensitivity for authenticity and against propaganda.
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
from experience filtered by ideology
when I say that federal involvement in the schools is directly responsible for the decline in the education of our children.

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2011
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?
Yeah, why should dogbert be required to evidence his claims? After all, we're just supposed to have faith in him that he's correct, just like he has faith in his religious leaders that they're correct.

That way we can continue the human faith chain until people believe all sorts of ridiculous things....

Or you could go get some evidence for your bigotted bullshit, dogbert.
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2011
soulman,
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.

No, I gave you sufficient reason. You choose to say I have not provided reasons, but I have. Let me provide them again:
1) Lower passing grades.
2) Lower standards to make a passing grade.
3) Continually lower standards as performance declines.
4) Programs such as "no child left behind" which pressure school systems to pass everyone regardless of status.
5) Federal requirements on standardized tests which encourage teachers to "teach the test" instead of the student.
6) Loss of federal funds to schools who "fail" to many students.

dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2011
soulman continued ...,

I have not advocated that the government "get out of the game" and replace it with something else. I advocate that the federal government stop regulating schools and allow the local boards to resume running the schools. Our education system was world class when local boards were in charge.
dogbert
1 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2011
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.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 06, 2011
The fallacy you are committing here, db, is known as "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc," otherwise known as mistaking correlation for causation. You bring up desegregation, which, as Ethelred has noted, smacks of an underlying racist motivation. Do you disagree that the Supreme Court was in error in abolishing all forms of mandatory legal segregation based on race?

In fact, I'm going to agree with you here that that was one of the most fundamental factors in the decline of public schools, and the reaction to it by majority whites, who could not stand their kids being educated in the city schools next to black or Hispanic kids, leaving and taking their money, and the funding for those city schools with them. 1/3
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 06, 2011
You're wrong that the feds fund public schools according to some "performance chart." Federal funds at best fill in the gaps. Public schools are paid for by local property taxes. And when the racist white middle class fled the cities so they no longer had to live next to the colored peoples, they started a downward trend in average public services that has not abated since.

The fact of the matter is that there are US primary and secondary public schools which outperform any equivalent European or Asian school. These schools are primarily found in wealthy cities where white flight did not occur, or wealthy, rather dense suburbs. But since the majority of cities did experience some version of it, the majority of schools suffered from loss of funding. This results in declining performance. Since the majority of people still live in the cities (poor whites, for example, never made it out), their poorer performance has a proportionally greater effect on average school performance.
Thrasymachus
2.5 / 5 (15) Feb 06, 2011
This racism is the cause of most other declines in the effectiveness of government services as well, and for exactly the same reason. The tragedy is that by avoiding getting over their racism by fleeing the cities, that racism has deepened. The crime is that an otherwise legitimate political position of fiscal restraint and operational efficiency has glommed on to those racism motivations for political advantage.

Since the motivation has changed from maintaining a low-cost government to keeping those "other" people from getting what's "mine," popular advocates of this position threaten the abolition of every familiar and successful government institution in existence. This routinely includes threats to Social Security and Medicare, and also public education, the postal service and the Federal Reserve, but is also now expanding to include fire departments. I wonder, if Nixon had any idea of the full repercussions of the Southern Strategy, if he would have dared employ it.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2011
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.

I can discount your statements. Desegregation had no effect on the performce of school systems until there was pseudo segregation as Thras points out above.

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

Basically you're ignoring 98% of the equation, which is primarily fiscal and workflow based, to follow a 2% notion that you think is accurate.
frajo
5 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2011
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.
No. I don't discount your experience. But I question your conclusions as they don't take into account differing conclusions based on the same data.
dogbert
1 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2011
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.

ShotmanMaslo
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2011
Schools should be funded by recieving fixed amount of money for every student they teach, so that quality of neighbourhood has no financial effect on the quality of education. Otherwise it leads to a downward spiral, where schools in poorer regions get less money, further reinforcing the poverty.
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 06, 2011
Of course, Shotman, however, you'd then have folks much like dogbert here complaining about how "their tax dollars" are being spent on other people's kids, when they'd rather that money be spent to give their own kids special advantages. Rampant, ignorant and racist me-firstism is the cause of most of America's ongoing domestic failures, and will continue thus unless and until our culture starts to value the relief of other's suffering at least as much as it values a moderate gain in self-satisfaction.
dogbert
1 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2011
Thrasymachus ,

Don't attribute your miserly attitude to me.

If you have an argument, make it. Stop trolling.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2011
The tragedy is that by avoiding getting over their racism by fleeing the cities, that racism has deepened.
I don't see that in Orange County. That is I don't see as much racism in the kids and young adults around me. I see whites, blacks and hispanics dating. Might be one reason there so much hate directed at California by RightWingNuts.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2011
No, I gave you sufficient reason
You gave your opinion and that opinion is based on ideology and an inaccurate timing as the US school system went downhill LATER than you claim. Nixon was president when it started and in California Reagan was governor.

It did not start going downhill during the Eisenhower admin.
Lower passing grades
Which came later than you claim
Lower standards to make a passing grade.
Many teachers have been grading on a curve for a LONG time. If you mean the standard tests you will have to show evidence that it has been soft balled.
Continually lower standards as performance declines.
Show evidence. The actual tests SHOW a decline in students so how is that lowering the tests?
Programs such as "no child left behind" which pressure school systems to pass everyone regardless of status
That is the schools and not the concept. The schools are supposed to do it by TEACHING better not by running a con.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2011
Federal requirements on standardized tests which encourage teachers to "teach the test" instead of the student.
Not the fault of the tests. Fault of the teachers and the schools. Not really a fault either IF the tests require the students to actually learn things.
Loss of federal funds to schools who "fail" to many students.
Loss to fail the tests which show how well the schools do in teaching. If the schools don't teach why the hell should they get Federal funds to waste on their incompetence.
I advocate that the federal government stop regulating schools and allow the local boards to resume running the schools.
Which means no more federal funds and no more desegregation and a free hand to push ignorance AND no way to know if the schools can't teach the kids to read because they get tested by an outside organization. In other words to put the schools back where they were before WWII. Which means crappy segregated schools teaching creationism.

Ethelred
Gawad
5 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2011
...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.
Thrasymachus
2.9 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2011
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.
Well, sure. But on the exceedingly remote chance
that one of 'em actually does have this transcendent, non-human source of knowledge, this is still a reason to prefer science. I mean, it'd be awful nice if some divinity or advanced being came and gave us answers about the world, but I know I didn't ask for, nor do I desire that kind of charity. Much better to figure stuff out on our own. I also find it more than passing strange that these conservative religionists, enamored as they are with "rugged individualism," so vigorously insist that we all give ourselves over to such charity, rather than use a tool which is indisputably our own.
hush1
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2011
Imagine all languages (not just human languages) that has agenda.

And no matter how you translated or interpreted that language, including any human language, the agenda contained there within, begins supporting what humans call a belief system.

What belief system?
The one you sometimes call God.
The one you sometimes call science.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2011
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?
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,

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]
dogbert
1 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,

Quotes seem to be messed up.

Your statement:
"Then why are you stating that blacks are not as intelligent as whites? "

My response:
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.
Gawad
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2011
Dogbert, your statement, and I quote, "The decline began with desegregation efforts" really did kinda sound like it might have had overtones or implications of racism. You know? That might kind of explain S_H's reaction. But, hey, on the assumption that this is all a big misunderstanding...maybe you'd care to elaborate?
dogbert
1 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2011
Gawad,
Why are you taking up for Skeptic_Heretic? He is the only one making racist remarks.

hush1
2 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2011
I came to this thread without words - (weaponless).
I needed no words. I had nothing man made to offer.
I leave this specific wordy thread - still wordless.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2011
Gawad,
Why are you taking up for Skeptic_Heretic? He is the only one making racist remarks.


You mean like that time when YOU said desegregation destroyed the school system? Sorry buddy, you can't delete your comments above. The play by play shows your stance rather clearly.
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2011
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?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2011
Continue with your lies and racism, Skeptic_Heretic.
So let us see here. Is it a lie?

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.

So what is the definition of racism.
One definition is the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races. So can I define your stance as racism, indeed I can and have.
You have outed yourself as a liar
Refuted, see above.
a racist
Where?
a hypocrite
I attended a mixed race school thank you very much.
and a troll
Not in this case.

You cannot refrain from your racism, can you?
You'll have to tell me where I've done so.

After you fail at that, you can apologize to us for your ridiculous assertions.
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2011
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.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2011
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.

Yep, it's very obvious that you're not ashamed of your behavior. You still haven't addressed the fact that you think desegregation began the downward spiral of public schools.
Just so you can address your statement for all of us, here it is again.
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?
dogbert
1 / 5 (11) Feb 12, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,

I am beyond tired of your racism. If you were not trolling me with your racist attitude. I would just ignore you, but I cannot ignore your slurs.

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.

I will not continue to converse with a racist. I am reporting you and will continue to report you each time you troll or make racist remarks.

I do not believe the moderators will allow you to continue to spout your racism. Hopefully, they will close your account.
frajo
5 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2011
Going to apologize, or do you have no shame?
He's obviously very much ashamed. Accusing you of one's own offence is a typical displacement activity.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2011
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.

No, you count 5 posts where I called out YOUR assertion that blacks were inferior to whites.
He's obviously very much ashamed. Accusing you of one's own offence is a typical displacement activity.
No kidding. It's amazing.
dogbert
1 / 5 (12) Feb 12, 2011
frajo,
Review the posts. Only Skeptic_Heretic is making racist claims.

If you have read the posts, then stop trolling.

Skeptitc_Heretic,

Reporting you again. Be ashamed.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2011
frajo,
Review the posts. Only Skeptic_Heretic is making racist claims.
Is this the "I know you are but what am I" defense seen so commonly on elementary school playgrounds?
Gawad
5 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2011
Gawad,
Why are you taking up for Skeptic_Heretic? He is the only one making racist remarks.
It was just a question. Paranoid much? At this point if I'm "taking up with S_H" it's because you're an obvious liar, a troll and a bigot. And a waste of time (among other types of waste I can think of).

Given how your post have degenerate to hypocritical accusations of racism with regards to S_H and your hate speech is not to be tolerated on Pysorg, I've started to flag your posts as abuse. The moderaters can work out your BS for themselves.
dogbert
1 / 5 (11) Feb 13, 2011
Gawad,

Fine. Take up for the racist.
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast
5 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2011
Gawad,

Fine. Take up for the racist.


Maybe people would be on your side if you actually addressed that you made a racist sounding remark. It has been quoted above, yet you ignore the fact you wrote it and just call other people racists. Baffling.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2011
Dogbert

The reason no one is on your side on this that YOU are LYING or delusional. YOU made what looks very much like a racist remark. YOU were called on it by most here. YOU started LYING that SH was a racist for calling YOU racist. He might be wrong but he NEVER made a single racist remark.

So quit lying about it. Either deal with you original remark or just go away as you are very much in the wrong on this.

Basically you got your ass whipped and didn't post for two days then on your return you accusing others of doing what you VERY MUCH seem to have done and they most certainly did not.

Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2011
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast & Ethelred,

I never made any racist remark. The 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 read the racist remarks Skeptic_Heretic made repeatedly?

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

Ethelred,
The first racist statement Skeptic_Heretic made was this:
Basically you've outed yourself as a rascist stating generally that blacks do not perform as well in school because of heritage.


That is a direct quote of Skeptic_Heretic's. I did not say that, Skeptic_Heretic did.

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.
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast
5 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2011
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.


To everyone else it seems you are trolling, you are still yet address what you yourself said, instead you call people calling you out on something you said which seemed racist, as racist, which is beyond baffling. Skeptic Heretic never stated that, he stated you stated that from what you said, do you really not understand the difference? Are you going to address what you said?
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast
5 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2011
@Dogbert: If you clear up what you said and you explain it in a way that shows you not to be a racist, then that's fine, the issue is gone. No one else has made racist remarks, all they have done is point out what you said and how it comes off, which is racist. All you have to do to settle this is to explain what you said (to which has been quoted above), and we all go on with our days with you cleared as not being a racist. If it was accidental racism, just admit you were wrong in saying it (unless that is actually your view then... awkward).

Even your quote of Skeptic showed s/he was just stating what we believe you meant: "Basically you've outed yourself as a rascist stating generally that blacks do not perform as well in school because of heritage."

dogbert
1 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2011
ScintistAmauterEnthusiast,

What did I say that confused you?

How can I explain I made no racist remark when I made no racist remark?

Review the posts. Only Skeptic_Heretic made any racist remarks.
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast
5 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2011
The first usage of desegregation on this comment board, what you said came off as racist, that is the root of how you ended up being called racist, maybe you should elaborate and explain yourself more clearly, 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, aha

I have no need to review the posts, all it took was going to the source, which was you, which is what everyone was referring to.

If you can find anything racist by anyone else copy and paste it into your next reply, but I think everything racist sounding was purely in context of describing what you either said or how it came off.

Also, tolerant until proven racist, feel free to explain what you meant :]
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2011
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast,
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 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
5 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2011
I noted that education standards began to be lowered during the 60's during the time of school desegregation. This is true.

There can only be one interpretation of what you said and HOW you said it. You even repeated it. Your intent was to imply a correlation between desegregation and the lowering of scholastic standards. This is why you're being labeled a racist.

Furthermore, you've done nothing to clarify your intended meaning (also suggestive), so do answer the following question to set the record straight.

Did scholastic standards decline directly, or even in part, because the schools were desegregated?
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2011
In my immediate vicinity there was a man who was swearing, weeping, and lying to his wife and children for 28 years until his death about an extramarital affair. At his funeral, the extramarital son presented himself to the family.
Dogbert's behavior reminds me of that phenomenon.
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast
5 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2011


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?



I was fair and explained why everyone is claiming you to be a racist, so why ask if i'm going to start making racist statements? Also that we are members of the KKK? You seem like you are trolling, I was honest and non hostile and you seem to not reciprocate my tone.

No one finds Skeptic racist because he wasn't expressing personal opinions, he was noting yours, maybe what you said just came out wrong?

dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2011
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.

No Sir, ScientistAmauturEnthusiast, Skeptic_Heretic was expressing his own racist attitudes and attributing them to me. I noted a time when education standards began to decline in America. You keep supporting Skeptic when he introduced his racist comments about inferior blacks. Because you keep supporting this ridiculous claim of Skeptic_Heretic, I ask if you are supporting his claim of black inferiority.

The federal government has directly caused the decline in the American education system for about 50 years. This has nothing to do with skin color, it has to do with big government interfering with state and local control of education.
soulman
5 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2011
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.

You have evaded my direct question. Thanks, we now know where we stand.
Skultch
5 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2011
Because you keep supporting this ridiculous claim of Skeptic_Heretic, I ask if you are supporting his claim of black inferiority.


Your claim

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


implies that the reason they lowered the standards was because the new students were inferior.

Since you say you don't agree with that, why do you think they lowered the standards? I'll help you dig yourself out: One could say that adding undereducated children to the group required a redefining of what was "average" education level. Do you see how that explains the situation with opportunity instead of race as the reasoning?

There. I gave you something you could agree to so you can hide your racism and/or trolling.

Now. Why do you think they kept lowering the standards, even after the black students recovered from their late start? Have they ever recovered? Did they ever really achieve equal opportunity?
dogbert
1 / 5 (10) Feb 14, 2011
soulman and Skultch,

I will not get into a speculative argument with you about why the federal government does any of the foolish things it does.

Skeptic_Heretic states that education standards were lowered because of black inferiority and you seem to agree. I don't and I have no theory about why the government intentionally lowers education standards. I don't know why the government of the '60's committed us to the Vietnam war, the so called "war on poverty" or many other things the government did and continues to do. It is obvious that our federal government continues its efforts to lower education standards today and education standards are one area where the federal government has been remarkably effective.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic states that education standards were lowered because of black inferiority and you seem to agree
No, you said this. They agree that you said it.

Just so you're aware, you've now tread into the land of legal rammifications. You can clarify what you said about desegregation causing the decline of education, or I can begin to explore legal avenues as you've now referred to me as a racist multiple times.

I'd strongly suggest you clarify and express your apology, or seek legal council.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2011
I never made any racist remark
You made a remark that is difficult to see as anything but racist.
he only racist remarks made were made by Skeptic_Heretic.
False.
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
He NEVER said blacks were inferior to whites. He said YOU said it. You lie every time you claim he engaged in racism and we are waiting for YOU to explain yourself.
Read the remarks. I never made any racist remarks.
You made a remark that is hard to think was anything but racist.
How is it that you cannot see that he is trolling me by making racist remarks and then claiming that I made them?
You have reading problem. The only way you did not make a racist statement is if admit that desegregation was not the cause of the problem and was merely coincidental in time.
The first racist statement Skeptic_Heretic made was this:
And how was that racist on HIS part?

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2011
It might be wrong but isn't racist. It isn't wrong either.
He is a liar and a racist troll.
You are liar OR an idiot. He NEVER claimed anyone was inferior. Your reading problem is quite severe. Not surprising from a Fundamentalist that is pretending to not be a Fundamentalist. Anyone that read Genesis One and Two and did not see the contradiction is incapable of reading what is actually written.

NOW for what YOU said and yet to show cause for. You initially told this falsehood:
Since the federal government became involved, education has steadily declined to the point that the U.S. is far behind many other nations.
It is a falsehood because the US educational system IMPROVED when the Feds increased it's level of involvement after Sputnik and in actual fact the feds have PAID for education for MANY decades, over a century.

More
frajo
5 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic states that education standards were lowered because of black inferiority and you seem to agree.
No.
Just FYI: I'm monitoring and saving this whole thread daily.
You don't seem to care that the kind of permanent lie coupled with knowingly false accusations you are practicing here in this thread spoils your credibility in any of your comments.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2011
You then went on to make this statement:
The decline began with desegregation efforts. Passing scores were lowered and the requirements to meet the lowered scores were lowered.
That is the statement thats sounds racist. It is also false on two levels.

One - it pretends that the feds were responsible for the LOCAL boards evasion of their duty to teach black students for the previous CENTURY. Even after the Civil War it was illegal to teach blacks how to read in some states. This long term educational deficit was hidden until desegregation and not just in the South but in North as well. No one gave national test so there was no way to know what was being covered up.

It also makes the assertion that the Feds were responsible for the lowering of passing scores by TEACHERS and school systems. That is why the Fed has national tests which have NOT BEEN LOWERED. It is the poor results on those tests that show the poor education that students are often receiving.

More
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2011
Two - There are MANY factors in the decline of education in the US. I just had a science teacher complaining about calculators and when researching this post I found a physics teacher making the same complaint. We used slide rules when I was in school. I am not sure the complaint is fully valid as it feels like whining that they didn't get to use calculators. TVs have become ubiquitous and they are VERY LARGE time suck that simply was not present in the 50's to such a significant degree. When I went to elementary school the vast majority of the kids mother was did not have a job except to raise the kids. Women working and raising kids is another major cause, possibly the largest cause, of a decline in education. That is education begins at home and now it simply doesn't begin.

Oh I looked up the earliest federal involvement in education and I was wrong that it was going on for a century.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2011
It's been over two centuries. It started even before we had the present Constitution.
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.


More
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2011
You have either been engaging in totally delusional posts throughout this thread or you have been just about the most mendacious, duplicitous, brass balled, lying, green and scaly troll I have seen in a considerable length of time. I really think it is the latter as you clearly started on this site by pushing Creationism while trying to disguise you agenda and starting out as duplicitous poster. That can not be a good thing for anyone's character in the long run. If you weren't actually lying to begin with you certainly gone down the very slippery slope of mere duplicity and clearly transitioned into out and out lies.

You CAN change for the better. 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.

Ethelred
soulman
5 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2011
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.

Easy there Ethel, he may be a douche, but you're going overboard here.
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2011
Women working and raising kids is another major cause, possibly the largest cause, of a decline in education.
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.
dogbert
1 / 5 (11) Feb 15, 2011
Ethelred and frajo,

You make your positions clear when you continue to condone Skeptic_Heretic's racist trolling. Your constant insults toward me are also indicative of your agenda.

Skeptic_Heretic,

You made the statements. It is not illegal to point out your remarks are racist and trolling since you make the remarks and then attribute them to me. 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. But you restated them several times.

You do, however, have lots of company. Several people support your position.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2011
Easy there Ethel, he may be a douche, but you're going overboard here.
You mean I shouldn't suggest that he can change? But he can. He just has to have the desire and the will.

Or perhaps you simply aren't aware of what happened to George Wallace. He was a real nasty piece of work but he did change. I suspect the bullet was the thing that got him to rethink his life but I don't think that is needed and I did not imply that it was. I am not Chuck Palahniuk. Even Chuck doesn't seem to require bullets for change. All the time.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2011
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
Not my point. The tend to see to it that the kids study. As opposed to watch the TV and play games.
And they preserve the conservative notion that girls don't need to learn anything else but cooking, praying, and serving their husband's needs.
I don't know how it is in Europe but it certainly wasn't that way in my house. Then again my mother was the only girl in her high school senior algebra class after she transferred from a Catholic school to a public school. Apparently the nuns didn't put up with that kind of crap either.

Ethelred
soulman
5 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2011
Or perhaps you simply aren't aware of what happened to George Wallace.

No, I'm no familiar with his case. But that's irrelevant, because the 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.

I'm way more prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt (compared to dogggybert) as I agree with 99% of your posts, but I do feel compelled here to call you up on your ill considered comment.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2011
Gawad,

Fine. Take up for the racist.

Take your posts and shove 'em. Bigots/trolls like you aren't worth the time, but if you get flagged as an a**h*** enough, just maybe you'll just go PUFFF....
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2011
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
Only if you ignore an entire sentence of what I wrote.
Perhaps you can do it without that.
I can see DodgyBrains ignoring that but YOU should be able to read.

This is not the only time I have used Wallace as an example of people changing for the better. I have always pointed out that a bullet shouldn't be needed. 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?
but I do feel compelled here to call you up on your comment
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.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2011
You make your positions clear when you continue to condone Skeptic_Heretic's racist trolling.
Since he didn't do that you are just LYA. My position is quite clear on this. SH has not made a single racist statement. So it is impossible to condone.

This is exactly the same kind of bizarrely self-evident lie like the ones you where claimed that I was trying to destroy the First Amendment. Both statements are so ludicrous that some people would feel there is no need to point out that you lied. That sort of wimpy thinking leads to really bad things happening. You seem to be suffering from RightWingNut Liberals are Wimps Disease where they think they can tell any lie they want and not have to worry about being called on it because LibTards are Wimps. I am no wimp.
You made the statements.
No he didn't. You just lied about it. Rather a lot of times now.

More
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2011
You began the racist comments by calling me a racist for the comments you made.
That is so convoluted you may even believe it. Nevertheless it is another lie. He pointed out the YOU made what looked like a racist statement. So has everyone else here.
Not once have you said you did not mean the racist remarks you made.
No. He said it was you that had all but said those things. Since you did everything BUT say you wanted Creationism in science classes it is no surprising that SH would you think you were simply doing the same thing with racism this time. Hard to think otherwise. It would require that we ignore your previous duplicitous behavior.
You do, however, have lots of company. Several people support your position.
Yes. HIS REAL position. You made a statement that looks just as racist now as it did the first time you said it. No one is supporting SH making racist remarks for the simple reason that he didn't do it.

Ethelred
soulman
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2011
Only if you ignore an entire sentence of what I wrote.

I did not ignore what you wrote. I even quoted what you wrote in full.
This is not the only time I have used Wallace as an example of people changing for the better.

Irrelevant to the case at hand.
YOU are the first person to have a problem with that.

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

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

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

Not really, because you left open the door to an implication not unlike doggybert's.
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast
5 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2011
@dogbert

Your inability to understand why everyone is agreeing that you made a racist sounding remark and that no one else has isn't your fault, clearly the education system failed you, or according to you, the government. If school boards were in charge as you so wish, maybe you would have had a better chance at either avoiding making racist statements or at least comprehending the difference between the description of a racist remark, and the actual racist remark.

:]
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2011
I did not ignore what you wrote. I even quoted what you wrote in full.
Yes I noticed that. Which is why I don't understand your problem.
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.
As I have already pointed out, I didn't ignore your rider.
Then you didn't understand it.
Yeah, sort of.
You have been reading too much Dog'sBreath. The Breath of dogs is notoriously corrosive.
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.

Oh has anyone else noticed the irony of Dogbert's handle? Dogbert is a caricature of duplicitous self-serving businessmen created by an Atheist.

Ethelred
soulman
5 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2011
Not by normal people. I will give YOU the benefit of the doubt and assume that Doggy has effected your thinking on this thread.

He hasn't, but I'll let it go mainly because your track record is incomparably better than doggybreath's.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2011
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.
Soulman wasn't the first. I felt the same before he commented on that topic. But I usually need more time to transform my thoughts into written words.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2011
Brain rot. That is what is that is.

Ethelred
Gawad
not rated yet Feb 15, 2011
I think it was the "shot in the back" bit that is just so graphic that it elicits a visceral reaction. Strickly speaking it is nothing more than a description of what led to this man's transformation, but it is so very very graphic that it does make one squirm. At least it does me.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2011
Well now I have to figure out if the case has to be held in England or the US, and physorg can expect a subpoena for your documentation.

I really hate to have to get the law involved, but it appears that shitheads only understand one thing.... getting in trouble with the law.

You had best hope the case won't be arbitrated in England. You're technically also commiting harassment by continuing after repeated requests to cease your activity.

Shouldn't take me long to get the necessary paperwork in order, you don't have much longer to recant and apologize, on this thread.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2011
I think it was the "shot in the back" bit that is just so graphic that it elicits a visceral reaction.
I can't help it. It was what was done to the man. I don't approve of it and I didn't even hint at approving of it.
but it is so very very graphic that it does make one squirm. At least it does me.
I used to work in a one-hour photo lab. One of my customers had copies of police evidence photos that he used in his true murder books. I have a rather different concept of GRAPHIC. There was this strikingly gorgeous Egyptian woman that got seriously tired of her American boyfriend ...

I went ahead and cooked chicken nuggets from the freezer that night anyway to make sure I didn't get fixated over it.

Now that ought to get the idea across about leaving out the graphic stuff. It can be worse than the reality. Then again the reality was pretty bad.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Feb 16, 2011
SH
You had best hope the case won't be arbitrated in England.
The server is a few miles from me in Fullerton. I checked back when we were discussing pubs. I don't think you can get the case tried in England. In the US you have to show a monetary loss.

I suspect that you know this already.

Ethelred

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.