Evolution and Stickers Revisted
-
time to get out your flintlock and start the revolution. kill some lefties for jesus! Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
:laugh: He is certainly original in his views, is he not? John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]
-
Of course it's religiously motivated, but in the end asking students to keep an open mind on the issue is not unconstitutional. There was no mention or endorsement of any specific relgion. Maybe spending money on stickers is a waste of money, but that's a different issue than calling them unconstitutional. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the NewEverthing has a context, as did this. The stickers were simply the latest attempt by the same group of people (that happens to include the State Superintendant of Education) to push a Creationist agenda. First they tried to pass a law to have "controversial subject' dropped from all texts and require 'alternative materials' required. (the 'and' there is most curious: the agenda was to drop 'evolution' as too controversial, but substitute creationism materials...a bit self contradictory). When that went nowhere, the tried to have the word 'evolution' stricken from all textbooks by administrative dictate. Public outrage and ridicule put a stop to that try. Finally, they tried to sneak through the stickers. Given the context, there was a clear endorsement of a specific religious point of view (one not necessarily shared by all members of that religion). If they want their views presented in the context of a comparative religion class, I would have no objection. Presenting it in the context of a science class, I object to strongly. If you want students to be presented with this garbage so they keep an open mind that is fine, but do so in the proper context. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
-
Yet another perfect example of the unrelenting attack from the Secularists to utterly displace any competitive set of moral principles. The people of Cobb county Ga were acting perfectly within their constitutional rights to have any damned thing they wanted plaecd within any text book they wanted in their own school district. That is precisely the how the people who wrote the constitution intended for it to work, not to be used by some fucking judge to impose his own personal set of principles without regard to the will of the people. And than the liberals stand around scratching their heads wondering why there is a reaction against this kind of tyranny. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Stan, the year is 2005. We are no longer in 1005, the ninth century. We have science, technology, no fear of the dark and a legal code that isn't controlled by the papacy. Welcome to it... ;P John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]
-
Which can still be debunked, because at the end of the day it isn't known as the truth. It is the best explanation science can give based on current data, but that does not mean it is 100% fact. That's why people don't go around calling it the "Fact of Evolution". ;) BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the NewWhich means that even you can have a go at debunking it. Why don't you enlighten us with some of your insight as to why it's not correct 100%? John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]
-
Bring it on. Either we teach children how to think and judge for themselves or we tell them "this is true and this is false". The latter is untenable, so if the Design Theorists (man I love the new term!) wish to put forward their views then they should, and must, do so in a manner that, reciprocally, allows an open mind, sound reasoning without being disingenuous and welcomes challenges and alternatives. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: Bring it on. But don't pay for it with my taxes. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
-
K(arl) wrote: judges can create jurisprudence when no law can't be applied No. That is not within their purview based on our constituiition. K(arl) wrote: Isn't it the task of the Supreme Court to decide if their judgment respects the constitution or not? Yes, if and when you can afford to carry something to that level. The Supreme Court almost adheres to the Constituition but has also crossed the line and created law where none exists. This is also a problem, but not a crisis. K(arl) wrote: Anyway, even if I agree there should be "something" to control Judges' decisions, it should not be done by another branch, legislative or executive. We don't have time for a revolution, and that is the only other choice. Remember the idea of the 3 branches of government (administrative {president, etc.}, legislative (House of Representatives and the Senate}, and the judicial {Supreme Court and lower level federal courts}) is to achieve a balance. Right now I content that the balance has been lost because judges are not only adjudicating they are legislating. The only way (that I see) to bring everything back into balance is to retire federal judges (by the president, as Newt Gingrich proposes) then have the president (administrative branch) nominate a new batch who understand our history and our Consitiuition then have the Congress (legislative branch) approve or vote down the nominations. If the process is followed there is no controlling by the administrative branch (the President) there is simply a process to correct something that has gotten out of control. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: based on our constituiition Ok, there's a difference there with "our" system. Mike Gaskey wrote: Yes, if and when you can afford to carry something to that level. So the problem isn't in the structure, but in the way to access this structure, right? Make it affordable to anybody. Mike Gaskey wrote: is to retire federal judges (by the president According to the president's beliefs!! That's highly dangerous IMO. You are just repeating the problem you want to solve, by authorizing the President to interpret the constitution. Adding approval of nomination by the Congress is not a kind of safety, and can be very partisan, more limited if there's something like a two third majority. B
Fold With Us! Sie wollen mein Herz am rechten Fleck Doch seh ich dann nach unten weg Da schlägt es links
-
The issue has absolutely nothing to do with religion or science one way or the other. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Stan Shannon wrote: The issue has absolutely nothing to do with religion or science one way or the other. Bullshit. The only thing it has nothing to do with is science. It had everthing to do with religion, and appropriate separation of church and state. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
-
Which means that even you can have a go at debunking it. Why don't you enlighten us with some of your insight as to why it's not correct 100%? John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]
John Theal wrote: Why don't you enlighten us with some of your insight as to why it's not correct 100%? Because I'm not a scientist. That doesn't change anything though does it? BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the New -
Mike Gaskey wrote: based on our constituiition Ok, there's a difference there with "our" system. Mike Gaskey wrote: Yes, if and when you can afford to carry something to that level. So the problem isn't in the structure, but in the way to access this structure, right? Make it affordable to anybody. Mike Gaskey wrote: is to retire federal judges (by the president According to the president's beliefs!! That's highly dangerous IMO. You are just repeating the problem you want to solve, by authorizing the President to interpret the constitution. Adding approval of nomination by the Congress is not a kind of safety, and can be very partisan, more limited if there's something like a two third majority. B
Fold With Us! Sie wollen mein Herz am rechten Fleck Doch seh ich dann nach unten weg Da schlägt es links
K(arl) wrote: So the problem isn't in the structure, but in the way to access this structure, right? Make it affordable to anybody Correct - but the Supreme Court is small and really couldn't address every potential case. K(arl) wrote: is to retire federal judges (by the president According to the president's beliefs!! That's highly dangerous IMO But retiring judges is one of his powers, it has been done before. K(arl) wrote: Adding approval of nomination by the Congress is not a kind of safety, and can be very partisan, more limited if there's something like a two third majority. Approval is one of Congresses powers, that is how it happens now. The bottom line is that what has been suggested by Gingrich is well within the powers of the various branches. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
To me a fact is absolute truth. This obviously differs from the scientific definition. I do not doubt evolution as such, but I have a difficult time believing we know for fact how life was created. If there is a good explanation that I haven't seen, I'd be happy to read it. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the Newbrianwelsch wrote: I do not doubt evolution as such, but I have a difficult time believing we know for fact how life was created. If there is a good explanation that I haven't seen, I'd be happy to read it. If you are referring to the first origin of life, then there are fragments of an explanation but, as far as I know, there is no definitive account. I expect that any decent biology textbook would make it clear that the knowledge concerning the first origin of life is significantly less than the knowledge concerning its subsequent evolution. As a point of information, the author of the textbook in question, Kenneth Miller, is a Christian. http://energion.com/books/reviews/finding_darwin.shtml[^] John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
-
Which means that even you can have a go at debunking it. Why don't you enlighten us with some of your insight as to why it's not correct 100%? John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]
I'm an agnostic and believe evolution as "fact". The argument I've heard most often from creationists is this: While evolution does a nice job explaining change over time it says nothing about that initial "spark" that created life in even it's simplest form. Until science can create life in a petri dish their argument seems valid. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
There are plenty of people who believe both in evolution and God. They aren't mutually exclusive. The theory, as I understand it, is that evolution is possibly the method by which God created/creates life, or even that evolution was put in place by God. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the NewYes, I'm aware of the evolution + creationism hybrid. I think it has about as much chance of survival as the antelope + walrus hybrid. :P Seriously though, it's a bit of mental juggling on the part of the believers. It says quite clearly in the bible that god created the world as-is in a period of seven days and makes no mention of evolution. PS: I gave you a 5 to balance the 1.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Anonymous wrote: I notice you completely ignored the point about educational standardization and fell back to the talking points of your own agenda. I ignored it because it is entirely irrelevant. You can't justified trashing the constitution to achieve "standardization". Well, I mean, unless you have an agenda you are trying to push and "standardization" is merely a means to an end for you. Anonymous wrote: If historical prescedent was the deciding factor in all state policies then black people and women still wouldn't be able to vote in many parts of the country. No they wouldn't. Both groups acquired the right to vote precisely as mandated by the framers of the constitution - by amendment. So that tired old liberal stand by has no validity in this case. Anonymous wrote: The irony here is that the kind of system you are pushing is specifically designed to minimize diversity. So having every local community deciding issues for themselves limits diversity but having a judge dictate to them what their standards will be enhances diversity? It is easy to tell that you have been brainwashed indoctrinated educated by the Secularist state. So much for critical thinking over mindlessly accepting a spoon feed world view - the religious nuts of Cobb Co., GA have nothing on you. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Stan Shannon wrote: I ignored it because it is entirely irrelevant. Not to anyone who wants to pursue higher education or reliably choose from millions of applying students who want to enter higher education. Stan Shannon wrote: So having every local community deciding issues for themselves limits diversity but having a judge dictate to them what their standards will be enhances diversity? I'm glad we agree. What do people in Podunk, Nowhere know or care about Hinduism, for example? A billion people in the world practice it. It might be a good thing to learn about in a religion class no matter how relevant it may seem to the citizens of Podunk. Hence the increased diversity when pulling from a larger body of knowledge. P.S. The 'state' dictating curriculum does not mean 'a judge' i think you mistyped hur bur glurb.
-
Bring it on. Either we teach children how to think and judge for themselves or we tell them "this is true and this is false". The latter is untenable, so if the Design Theorists (man I love the new term!) wish to put forward their views then they should, and must, do so in a manner that, reciprocally, allows an open mind, sound reasoning without being disingenuous and welcomes challenges and alternatives. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: Either we teach children how to think and judge for themselves or we tell them "this is true and this is false". I don't think one or the other is exclusive. There are some things that are true and some that are false. Teaching students to "think and judge for themselves" is not a solution - its really part of the problem. We have a body of knowledge that all students should learn dogmatically and we have a body of knowledge that is concrete enough to use although its correctness cannot be proven 100% and we have a body of knowledge that is fragmental and evolving in nature. We must not confuse one with the other nor must we let a student think that all knowlede is equal: its not Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
brianwelsch wrote: I do not doubt evolution as such, but I have a difficult time believing we know for fact how life was created. If there is a good explanation that I haven't seen, I'd be happy to read it. If you are referring to the first origin of life, then there are fragments of an explanation but, as far as I know, there is no definitive account. I expect that any decent biology textbook would make it clear that the knowledge concerning the first origin of life is significantly less than the knowledge concerning its subsequent evolution. As a point of information, the author of the textbook in question, Kenneth Miller, is a Christian. http://energion.com/books/reviews/finding_darwin.shtml[^] John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
Looks like an interesting read, thanks for the link. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the New -
David Wulff wrote: Do you not have Religious Education classes over there? Not as part of standard curriculum, at least not 15 years ago where I went to school. Some high schools may offer such classes as an elective to satisfy social study requirements. Or religion would be touched on in classes dealing with other civilizations/cultures, perhaps even in history if appropriate. I don't recall much discussion on actual creation though outside of evolution. David Wulff wrote: But it isn't taught as fact Nor during mine, but it sounded like the pro-sticker folks were concerned that it was being taught as such. I'm not familiar with their school, so can't say they are wrong or right. David Wulff wrote: it was about presenting the GOD theory as pure unadulterated fact and giving no time to the others (if they could only get away with it). I live in the middle of the Bible Belt in the US (the county in question is about 2 hrs. away), and would be very surprised if a majority would want to do away with teaching evolution alltogether. My only real issue with this whole deal is that the stickers were found unconstitutional. That seems absurd to me. The desire for the sticker seems absurd to me also, but that it was found unconstitutional sort of leaves me dumbfounded. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the Newbrianwelsch wrote: Not as part of standard curriculum That is a bigger "wow" to me. Did you study any religions? Beliefs, teachings, life, etc? If so, which ones?
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
-
brianwelsch wrote: Not as part of standard curriculum That is a bigger "wow" to me. Did you study any religions? Beliefs, teachings, life, etc? If so, which ones?
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
I honestly can't remember specifically studying modern religions in school outside of a few passing remarks or ancient religions when discussing the Greeks and Romans. I may have forgotten the lectures(not out of the question), but either way it wasn't in enough detail that the info stuck with me. Also, a lack of coverage in my education doesn't mean that all schools neglect this topic, just that it wasn't deemed important where I grew up (New England). What knowledge I have is due mostly to my own reading or talking to others. Which touches on Christianity, Judiasm, Muslim, Taoism, Buddhism, Wiccan, Native American, Sikh and Hinduism. I assume by your response then that an in depth coverage of world religion is mandatory in the UK. How detailed do they get? As an aside, how much Asian/African/American History is covered? BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the New -
Yes, I'm aware of the evolution + creationism hybrid. I think it has about as much chance of survival as the antelope + walrus hybrid. :P Seriously though, it's a bit of mental juggling on the part of the believers. It says quite clearly in the bible that god created the world as-is in a period of seven days and makes no mention of evolution. PS: I gave you a 5 to balance the 1.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: I think it has about as much chance of survival as the antelope + walrus hybrid. :-D Perhaps. Daniel Ferguson wrote: It says quite clearly in the bible that god created the world as-is in a period of seven days and makes no mention of evolution. But for those who don't necessarily believe the Bible, there is a nice middle ground to bounce around in. Creationists aren't necessarliy all Christians. Some of us like to entertain the idea of "intelligent design" in leiu of a 'proven' explanation of how life began. Thanks for the 5. ;) BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the New -
Yet another perfect example of the unrelenting attack from the Secularists to utterly displace any competitive set of moral principles. The people of Cobb county Ga were acting perfectly within their constitutional rights to have any damned thing they wanted plaecd within any text book they wanted in their own school district. That is precisely the how the people who wrote the constitution intended for it to work, not to be used by some fucking judge to impose his own personal set of principles without regard to the will of the people. And than the liberals stand around scratching their heads wondering why there is a reaction against this kind of tyranny. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
You're a crazy man Stan. And your posts reflect that. :) -- Komm tu mir langsam weh, leg mir die Ketten an und zieh die Knoten fest, damit ich lachen kann I blog too now[^]
-
I honestly can't remember specifically studying modern religions in school outside of a few passing remarks or ancient religions when discussing the Greeks and Romans. I may have forgotten the lectures(not out of the question), but either way it wasn't in enough detail that the info stuck with me. Also, a lack of coverage in my education doesn't mean that all schools neglect this topic, just that it wasn't deemed important where I grew up (New England). What knowledge I have is due mostly to my own reading or talking to others. Which touches on Christianity, Judiasm, Muslim, Taoism, Buddhism, Wiccan, Native American, Sikh and Hinduism. I assume by your response then that an in depth coverage of world religion is mandatory in the UK. How detailed do they get? As an aside, how much Asian/African/American History is covered? BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the NewFirst some age group definitions: - Primary school is ages 4-10 - Secondary school is ages 11-16 - College is ages 17-18/19 - Univeristy is 18-19 + (We also have First and Middle schools where demand for schooling is high, which are ages 4-7 and 8-11 respectively.) Up to middle scool age we are taught, loosely, Christian beliefs and values. As far as I can remember we didn't have any specific Religious Education (RE) classes. From 8 to 15 we are taught about the six main religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism). Emphasis is of course given to Christianity still because on paper England is a Christian country, and we go into a lot of detail on the various teachings and ideas presented in the Christian history and beliefs, but maybe a third of the secondary education is dedicated to other religions. The only shortcoming from memory was that we barely touched Judaism (I know more about Sikhs than I do Jews). In my experience the first two years of high school RE was almost exclusively looking at Christianity with only passing mention of other beliefs, with about a third then looking at the other main religions. Then at 15 we have two years preperation for our GCSE qualifications - as part of this course we are required to take certain subjects. Maths, English, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, a foreign langauge etc. One of the requirements is also either a short course or long course religious education. I believe the short course is called Religious Studies (RS), where you look at religions in general and none in particular. I opted to go for the full course Religious Education myself because I found it an interesting subject. In the RE course we looked at Christianity and one other main world religion that we as a class/group decided on, which in our case was Islam. I think in those two years we looked majoritively at Islam, including studying their beliefs systems, their teachings, their links with world history and the personal history of a number of important people in their faith. This wasn't just academic study - we visited local mosques, talked with local Imam's, took part in Islamic medidation, looked at historical items, etc. At the end of the course we had to prepare coursework and take a series of written exams that were on par with those we took relating to the Christian faith. Regarding history, I stopped taking it as a subject at 15 (before my GCSEs) so I don't have a full education on that. I personally don't recall anything relating to Asian hi