If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Toledo Blade)   Michigan joins the ranks of the states considering legislation to preserve the academic freedom to present nonsense as Science   (toledoblade.com) divider line 835
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

9997 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jun 2008 at 4:50 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



835 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-06-06 10:43:08 PM
Samsaran: CitizenReserveCorps: So what you're saying is that you disagree with all of evolutionary science because it doesn't have all of the answers? So, it's better to be completely wrong than incomplete?

No I believe in what I said not your mischaracterization of what I said.


I apologize for that.

So, you dismiss the entire field of abiogenesis research because it doesn't have all of the answers yet? So, it's better to risk being completely wrong than incomplete?
 
2008-06-06 10:47:18 PM
Samsaran: The calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable.

It also neglects precursor (EG, forming the two halves separately) probabilities, autocatalysis, and a time component. It's as sloppy as the speciation calculation I used to show that there should be more species of life on Earth than atoms in it. (I neglected extinction effects and bounded environmental niche potentials.)

Ask if you want elaborations on these problems.

Samsaran: None of the molecules that have been made would sustain themselves (be able to continue self-replication) in an environment outside of the chemical reactions under which they are able to self-replicate, says Dr Ghadiri.

So, can you self-replicate without oxygen in your evironment?
 
2008-06-06 10:48:16 PM
FloydA: Do you support teaching the competing Stork hypothesis in human reproduction classes?

If not, why not?


Because in my view, the competing Stork hypothesis has no merit, and I've never heard of anyone who gives it serious consideration.

everlastinggobstopper: Its a undergraduate Introduction to Physical Anthropology class, and yes, im comfortable discussing the controversy if it is brought up in class. Thankfully I dont have to give equal time to ID proponents in my curriculum and I dont have to look over my shoulder when I say that ID is based on faith and pseudoscience. Theyre adults, and I certainly expect for them to be able to think for themselves and be able to evaluate the arguments of others, including mine. I think the NOVA special presents the scientific merit of evolution very clearly and does a good job of presenting, then refuting the arguments made by the ID crowd.

I would include the program in a suggested viewing/reading list at the undergraduate level for four reasons. It 1) summarizes evolution, natural selection fairly well 2) discusses science, the scientific method, theories, hypotheses as they relate to evolution 3) presents the ID point of view (often in their own words) and 4) explains why the scientific community rejects the ID argument.

I see no reason to ignore the claims made by the ID camp. Rather than dismissing it in four sentences 'Youve signed up to learn about science. Anthropology is science. Intelligent Design is faith. If you want to learn about faith this semester, Theology is two buildings over' and moving on, id rather tackle it head on. As long as the discussion was productive (and informed, hence the NOVA special suggestion) and didnt prevent me from getting to the rest of the semester's course material, why not take the opportunity to present ID for what it is?


I'm glad that you support open discussion of the controversy in a science class, and I agree with you that students should be permitted to think for themselves and make up their own minds. And academic freedom includes your right to express your negative view of ID.

The ironic part about using the Nova program in the classroom, however, is that the show is about a court action to prohibit any mention of ID in the classroom. They weren't teaching ID in Dover, nor were they even discussing it in the classroom. The entire court case was over a statement read to students advising them that ID is an alternative to Darwin's theory that students can read about on their own time if they're interested. If you show the Nova program in the classroom, students will be exposed to the very same material that the ACLU had censored in Dover, plus much more information about ID.

And because the NOVA program highlights legal efforts to suppress and censor ID in schools, students will become more interested in finding out about what the ACLU don't want them to know about. The best way to generate interest in something is try to censor it.
 
2008-06-06 10:49:50 PM
Samsaran: The discussion here is about whether or not is first POSSIBLE and second PROBABLE that random combinations of precursor molecules in a primordial soup could produce a self replicating protein. This is still a long long way from life mind you. We are setting the bar very low here.

One researcher puts it like this:[...]

In other words, just as in the Miller-Urey experiment these were ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCTS made under ideal laboratory conditions, not so much made to emulate the postulated "primordial soup" as to be ideal for the creation of carbon strings.


Please see my above post. We've come a long way since Miller-Urey. Computer modeling on autocatalytic sets has shown time and time again that simple elements will assume order and increasing complexity on their own and in short order by simply following the laws of physics and chemistry that we know (via scientific method) are accurate and true. The formation of stars, planets, and life is practically inevitable and the odds are not as long as the fundies like to say they are. Not even close.

I think you would be well served to look up the work of Stewart Kauffman, Doyne Farmer, and Norman Packard.
 
2008-06-06 10:50:27 PM
SkinnyHead: The best way to generate interest in something is try to censor it.

No wonder Evolution is so popular!
 
2008-06-06 10:51:20 PM
There really is no reason to bicker with Creationists, Intelligent Design advocates, or 'Teach the Controversy' advocates about whether or not Empirical Science can account for absolutely every aspect of life or origin of the universe.It is irrelevant to the argument that science has not accounted 100% for everything.

This is what is relevant. Science deals with the capacity to demonstrate its theories ( scientific theories are supported by fact so are higher order than fact). Intelligent Design (etc) by its very demonstration is resistant to demonstration so does not belong in a science class.

The controversy is no controversy. There is no controversy between science and intelligent design because they simple are incomparable in scope. Forget about trying to convert the religious, there interest in science is not in itself scientific.


/I do happen to study philosophy, which is usually perceived also to be a competitor with science, though I really do not see any actual overlap so long as the scopes are kept distinct.
 
2008-06-06 10:52:16 PM
abb3w: Ask if you want elaborations on these problems.

Ironically the exact page he is using for his argument, is a refutation of his argument and all the points he is trying to make. The article and the links it provides do elaborate on those problems.

Here is a nice visual summary from said article.

www.talkorigins.org
 
2008-06-06 10:53:14 PM
i26.tinypic.com
 
2008-06-06 10:55:11 PM
Massa Damnata: /I do happen to study philosophy, which is usually perceived also to be a competitor with science, though I really do not see any actual overlap so long as the scopes are kept distinct.

Science and Philosophy don't overlap?

huizen.daxis.nlwww.enc.hu
Would like a word with you.

/I agree with everything else you said though =]
 
2008-06-06 10:58:30 PM
SkinnyHead:
The ironic part about using the Nova program in the classroom, however, is that the show is about a court action to prohibit any mention of ID in the classroom. They weren't teaching ID in Dover, nor were they even discussing it in the classroom. The entire court case was over a statement read to students advising them that ID is an alternative to Darwin's theory that students can read about on their own time if they're interested. If you show the Nova program in the classroom, students will be exposed to the very same material that the ACLU had censored in Dover, plus much more information about ID.

And because the NOVA program highlights legal efforts to suppress and censor ID in schools, students will become more interested in finding out about what the ACLU don't want them to know about. The best way to generate interest in something is try to censor it.


The trial was not about "censoring" ID.

Here is a part of the conclusion in the ruling of that trial. I will highlight the very important parts for you.

In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
 
2008-06-06 10:59:03 PM
bolzy: i26.tinypic.com

Actually the fossils still say yes. They always have.

How many of those opposed to evolution are aware that Darwin had nothing to do with the concept of it as a biological process? First book dealing with that subject was published the year Darwin was born. Granted how it said evolution happens was off the mark, that evolution happens was an accepted deal.
 
2008-06-06 10:59:43 PM
ninjakirby: While I'm waiting for the citation of the research above, my question is this:

If we did have bedrock concrete irrefuable evidence supporting the chemical origins of life, why would that change your belief in God?

I'm happy to discuss the work done in Chemistry on the subject, and back inference that life arose naturally, but the bigger question, imo, is why this point matters so much to you?


No it wouldn't change a thing as far as my religious beliefs such as they are.

I stated my religious beliefs in some detail earlier in the thread. To summarize, my thesis is that the idea of "design" as requiring a God acting upon the universe is incorrect. It is my view that the "design" is inherent in the process. I have no belief in a "personal God" as such. I am what is known as a "Scientific Pantheist" of the Spinozan school. Actually, more technically I would be considered a Panantheist. There is no "supernatural" all that is ... is natural. However, our understanding of the universe and its operation is rudimentary at best.

Despite my rejection of the idea of a personal God, my rejection of the idea of the divinity of Christ etc. I do believe that the evolution of the concept of God is one of the things that places us above the animals. I believe, in direct opposition to Professor Dawkins, that religion has given much to humanity. Not merely in the preservation of knowledge during the darkest times in human history, the encapsulation of universal truths in myth and allegory but also in providing a sense of order and meaning to existence. Religion is not monolithic there is far more to faith than the Western Christian tradition.

That said I am a great admirer of the teachings of Christ although not so much Paul of Tarsus or Augustine of Hippo. There is a lot to be said for love, forgiveness, charity to the stranger and the less fortunate and the idea that we do not need a priesthood or a temple to know God.
 
2008-06-06 11:02:04 PM
Feralcat -


I would go to bed but your mom is begging me to stay a little bit longer. Can't turn her down!
 
2008-06-06 11:02:08 PM
bolzy?

Man.. this thread rocks.

Most of the Pro-Science crowd is here, FloydA, PCLL, Jon Snow, abb3w, BrotherThadeus etc.

Bad Astronomer was here.

Bevets, SkinnyHead, Skookums, Samsaran, Bolzy, all here.

We've done politics, global warming, biblical literalism, holocaust denial, abiogenesis, evolution, philosophy, physics.

The only thing this thread is missing is a post from WisdomSage and Skepchick and an easily corrected lack of imagery.

www.ericdsnider.com

Can this thread fit more awesome in it without exploding?
 
2008-06-06 11:05:34 PM
ninjakirby: holocaust denial

wait was someone denying the holocaust and I missed it?
 
2008-06-06 11:06:32 PM
Samsaran: No it wouldn't change a thing as far as my religious beliefs such as they are.

I stated my religious beliefs in some detail earlier in the thread.


I got all that, it doesn't address the question of what causes you to reject the inference of Abiogenesis, despite the evidence all pointing in that direction. If there is no supernatural, if God is the Universe (to drastically over simplify pantheism), why the rejection of our origins from undirected matter?
 
2008-06-06 11:08:01 PM
ninjakirby: Can this thread fit more awesome in it without exploding?


Don't forget Dimensio

Sometimes the smart people on Fark just coalesce ... that is when it gets awesome.
 
2008-06-06 11:08:02 PM
ninjakirby

I'm sure there are many people (both philosophers and scientists) who would disagree with me.

I would maintain that there is a distinction between investigating the world, and asking why the world is something to be investigated. I don't dispute a material explanation of the mind, but I don't agree that a material explanation is sufficient. That being said there are non-material theories that do not invoke the supernatural. I also hope that this distinction limits philosophies meddling in other academic pursuits. That being said, I think its fair to say that just as many philosophers cringe when they see scientists breaking out into philosophy as do scientist when philosophers attempt to involve themselves with science.
 
2008-06-06 11:08:43 PM
WhyteRaven74: wait was someone denying the holocaust and I missed it?

It was brought up ancillary to some stuff. It counts!
 
2008-06-06 11:11:18 PM
Samsaran: The discussion here is about whether or not is first POSSIBLE and second PROBABLE that random combinations of precursor molecules in a primordial soup could produce a self replicating protein.

It's not exactly random, Samsaran. Are you aware of the concept of a feedback loop?
 
2008-06-06 11:12:29 PM
Massa Damnata: I would maintain that there is a distinction between investigating the world, and asking why the world is something to be investigated. I don't dispute a material explanation of the mind, but I don't agree that a material explanation is sufficient. That being said there are non-material theories that do not invoke the supernatural. I also hope that this distinction limits philosophies meddling in other academic pursuits.

Fair enough, I can see that distinction. I'm a fan of Philosophy myself, but I tend to stick with Philosophies of Science - the Brain in a Vat, 'Cogito, ergo sum' stuff doesn't interest me much. Which doesn't mean I discount it, just don't find it very interesting.

That being said, I think its fair to say that just as many philosophers cringe when they see scientists breaking out into philosophy as do scientist when philosophers attempt to involve themselves with science.

No doubt.
 
2008-06-06 11:13:03 PM
Here's a lovely creationist website that helps explain Noah's Ark. Complete with Doggie Incest Fact Chart:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/how-did-animals-spread

sorry for lack of html skills
 
2008-06-06 11:13:06 PM
ninjakirby: It was brought up ancillary to some stuff. It counts!

ah gotcha :)
 
2008-06-06 11:17:10 PM
Man On Pink Corner: Samsaran: The discussion here is about whether or not is first POSSIBLE and second PROBABLE that random combinations of precursor molecules in a primordial soup could produce a self replicating protein.

Are any of the alternatives any more probable?
 
2008-06-06 11:17:48 PM
*Facepalm*

I like my Bible stories in Church and my science in school. I'm fine learning each in the appropriate venue--and I do.
 
2008-06-06 11:18:12 PM
ninjakirby: Man.. this thread rocks.

And the best part? Caddyshack is on TVLand. It's in the hole!
 
2008-06-06 11:18:29 PM
the problem is its easier for one to believe in a creator than not.
 
2008-06-06 11:19:44 PM
This thread needs some critical thinking.

* Focus on Problems and Questions
* Identify problems
* Clarify issues
* Focus on relevant topics and methods
* Rely on Empirical Evidence
* Access relevant data and information
* Be able to manipulate data and statistics
* Be able to validate evidence by repetition
* Avoid wishful, hopeful, and subjective thinking
* Analyze Arguments
* Judge credibility of a source
* Identify assumptions
* Treat unreliable or odd information skeptically
* Watch out for authoritarian influences
* Watch out for specious arguments
* Use Logical Reasoning
* Understand induction and deduction
* Avoid logical fallacies
* Make value judgements properly
* Act On One's Beliefs
* Consider the other person's point of view
* Be sensitive to the feeling of others
* Judge the morality of one's own actions
* Anticipate the consequences of one's actions
 
2008-06-06 11:24:15 PM
SkinnyHead:


The ironic part about using the Nova program in the classroom, however, is that the show is about a court action to prohibit any mention of ID in the classroom. They weren't teaching ID in Dover, nor were they even discussing it in the classroom. The entire court case was over a statement read to students advising them that ID is an alternative to Darwin's theory that students can read about on their own time if they're interested. If you show the Nova program in the classroom, students will be exposed to the very same material that the ACLU had censored in Dover, plus much more information about ID.

And because the NOVA program highlights legal efforts to suppress and censor ID in schools, students will become more interested in finding out about what the ACLU don't want them to know about. The best way to generate interest in something is try to censor it.


Actually, Kitzmiller et al were parents petitioning the court to overturn the required reading of the following statement, as mandated by the school board:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.


The plaintiffs didnt want that statement to be a required part of the curriculum, arguing that it violated the Establishment Clause in the Constitution. There's a big difference between what they were arguing against and the suppression or censorship of ID.

Ive taught biology at the high school level (in PA, no less) and the feeling among my colleagues at the time (post-Dover) was that they didnt want a school board mandating what they were required to say as general practice, and didnt want ID injected into their curriculum in particular. Even the super-religious in our school district recognized that their heathen peers shouldnt HAVE to talk about ID in their classes if they didnt want to.
 
2008-06-06 11:24:27 PM
Samsaran: The Noble Rot: You guys have had 6000 years. You still have ZERO evidence.

And you wonder why you are laughed at.

Are you under the impression that I am a Christian Fundamentalist or young Earth Creationist? If so you must not have read (or understood) anything I have written. I haven't even noticed that you posted anything to me.

What statement of mine did you feel was incorrect?

I am discussing the theory of abiogenesis. I am not an anti evolutionist. The idea of evolution is absolutely true and correct and can even be witnessed in action as we see in the development of resistances in bacteria.

No the interesting question is how did life form from non-life?


Uh, moran? I didn't say what you quoted me as saying. THAT was a quote from PC Load Letter, upon whom I was hitting.

I didn't address you at all. Didn't bother. You're not interesting in my opinion. So do me the honor of not addressing me.
 
2008-06-06 11:26:43 PM
Full Government support = No reason to look for food or shelter.
 
2008-06-06 11:28:57 PM
The Noble Rot: Uh, moran? I didn't say what you quoted me as saying. THAT was a quote from PC Load Letter, upon whom I was hitting.

I didn't address you at all. Didn't bother. You're not interesting in my opinion. So do me the honor of not addressing me.


Why would I? You are quite obviously an idiot.
 
2008-06-06 11:30:15 PM
Creationists will have to speak louder. I continue to support those who would like to have their voices heard in biology classes. I encourage the effort to limit the teaching of evolutionary biology until such time as evolutionists encourage a more inclusive participation of students. The very idea of the American Civil Liberties Union conspiring with evolutionary biologists to limit the free speech of the majority of the high school students in this county is grotesque. ~ William Provine

SleepyMcGee

Hey ninjakirby, might you have that whole ACLU defending religion list handy?

ninjakirby

Oh hell yes.

Bevets

Are you suggesting the ACLU is infallible? Should free speech be permitted in high school classrooms?


ninjakirby

Merely providing evidence to contradict the popular notion that the ACLU is anti-religious. Personal opinion is that freedom of speech should not be fully extended to students

Should biology teachers be permitted to speak freely?

ninjakirby

However, what work have you done to show that the timescale of several million years is not enough to create an Archie comic, let alone Hamlet?

If you want to talk Abiogenesis and timescales, I'm happy to, I've got the papers sitting on my desk somewhere.


Many investigators feel uneasy stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit they are baffled. ~ Paul Davies

Nobody understands the origin of life. If they say they do, they are probably trying to fool you. ~ Kenneth Nealson

If you're interested, my father is quite religious, and a web developer, perhaps he could help you out - you guys could be buddies.

Hook me up.
 
2008-06-06 11:33:29 PM
whatshisname: Are any of the alternatives any more probable?

You misattributed that to me, but I'll answer for Samsaran anyway.

- He believes that subatomic particles can join to form atoms on their own, possibly with the help of divine "design."
- He believes that atoms can join to form simple molecules, with the application of external energy from outside the system.
- He believes that some of those simple molecules can join to form complex compounds.
- He believes that some of those compounds might be amino acids -- if he's aware of Miller-Urey, he doesn't have much choice.
I'd assume that he believes that amino acids might undergo further combination into proteins without adding any new divine principles to previous observations.
- He does not appear to believe that those proteins or amino-acid combinations might include messenger RNA or other fundamental compounds needed for self-replication.
- It's not clear if he believes that lipids can form membranes that delineate discrete environments that are conducive to self-replication.
- He has stated that he does not believe that higher-order organisms can emerge from this process without supernatural input at any particular stage. He has stated that he feels this is too "improbable."

What he never gets around to telling us is how he draws his mental Maginot line of improbability. Right after the Miller-Urey reaction products? Or in a later step?

That'll be useful, because then we can drill down and ask him why he believes that the "chain of chance" stops where it he believes it does. Until then, we really don't know what he's arguing for or against.
 
2008-06-06 11:34:52 PM
ninjakirby:
Can this thread fit more awesome in it without exploding?


Sure let's try out the new meme.....

For those of you trying to understand in samsaram terms:

I am what is known as a "Scientific Pantheist" of the Spinozan school
 
2008-06-06 11:40:35 PM
fanbladesaresharp: I am what is known as a "Scientific Pantheist" of the Spinozan school

Guys like you and The Noble Rot are just white noise ... so much annoying static in a rare intelligent Fark thread. You offer nothing. You have nothing to offer. You fail at life.
 
2008-06-06 11:42:44 PM
Samsaran: The Noble Rot: Uh, moran? I didn't say what you quoted me as saying. THAT was a quote from PC Load Letter, upon whom I was hitting.

I didn't address you at all. Didn't bother. You're not interesting in my opinion. So do me the honor of not addressing me.

Why would I? You are quite obviously an idiot.


Wow, what an eloquent remark! I'm cleft to the very soul, truly.

I've read your comments closely (something you obviously failed to do with mine) and didn't find them particularily compelling. I repeat: You do not interest me. I know that must hurt, judging by your infantile attack on my intelligence, but I'm sure your broken heart will heal in time.

I don't like you. You're a nasty, rude, irritating little person who likes to be contrary for attention. No thinking human being, or even a passably intelligent ape for that matter, would defend such a weak fantasy as ID. Yet here you are.

You misquoted me, you attacked me, and now I'm done with you.
 
2008-06-06 11:46:51 PM
abb3w: Sarcastically, yes.

ah thanks :D I was in the thread, then went to another and forgot to check back then saw I missed about 300 posts. I hate it when that happens.
 
2008-06-06 11:47:14 PM
Bevets: If you're interested, my father is quite religious, and a web developer, perhaps he could help you out - you guys could be buddies.

Hook me up.


I'll email you the information.

Bevets: Merely providing evidence to contradict the popular notion that the ACLU is anti-religious. Personal opinion is that freedom of speech should not be fully extended to students

Should biology teachers be permitted to speak freely?


Everyone should be permitted to speak freely, but there is a time and place. A Biology teachers job is to teach Biology, and that is all they should do, during class time. Outside of that, I don't really care, though if I found out my childs teacher was in favor of ID, or Creationism, or I dunno.. Astrology or Homeopathy, I might seriously consider having my kid placed in a different class - after speaking with the teacher in person, of course.
 
2008-06-06 11:47:28 PM
Samsaran: The calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears. This gives the impression that the formation of even the smallest organism seems totally impossible. However, this is completely incorrect.

You do realize that 1) there is many more than one 'correct' sequence for a carboxypeptidase 2) there are several forms of carboxypeptidase with divergent structures as well different specific functions and 3) a typical protein of that size will be composed of many domains that are share with proteins that have completely divergent functions.

In other words, just because the 1 in 2.04 x 10^brazillianth is very unlikely does not mean that it must happen only that way or it can't happen at all.
 
2008-06-06 11:50:21 PM
Why day after day, month... and year after year, I return to the cradle of farkiness,

To all who contributed,

THANK YOU !!!

and a question;

If, years after they died, and cannot defend with reason of their own making,

are Darwin, Einstein and other of their vast vision STILL being proven right, whilst the Lord is being depicted on pancakes and french freedom fries?


Just askin
 
2008-06-06 11:50:22 PM
Isn't this the state that allows Detroit to exist?
 
2008-06-06 11:51:52 PM
Lord_Baull

www.answersingenesis.org

It would seem from that chart that it was common for dogs to be hermaphrodites. Since this is not common now, would it be fair to say that the dogs have undergone an evolution, or perhaps even have devolved.
 
2008-06-07 12:02:11 AM
I find it inte

I've read your comments closely (something you obviously failed to do with mine) and didn't find them particularily compelling. I repeat: You do not interest me. I know that must hurt, judging by your infantile attack on my intelligence, but I'm sure your broken heart will heal in time.

I don't like you. You're a nasty, rude, irritating little person who likes to be contrary for attention. No thinking human being, or even a passably intelligent ape for that matter, would defend such a weak fantasy as ID. Yet here you are.

You misquoted me, you attacked me, and now I'm done with you.


It doesn't phase me at all. I read your posts. They are childishly simplistic. You are clearly out of your depth here. This is something that you do not understand yet you have closed your mind. That is why you are an idiot. I neither like you nor dislike you. In fact I have never read anything you have ever written until tonight. You are sort of a non entity aren't you ... still smug and condescending, but really rather stupid.
 
2008-06-07 12:10:03 AM
Creationists will have to speak louder. I continue to support those who would like to have their voices heard in biology classes. I encourage the effort to limit the teaching of evolutionary biology until such time as evolutionists encourage a more inclusive participation of students. The very idea of the American Civil Liberties Union conspiring with evolutionary biologists to limit the free speech of the majority of the high school students in this county is grotesque. ~ William Provine

SleepyMcGee

Hey ninjakirby, might you have that whole ACLU defending religion list handy?

ninjakirby

Oh hell yes.

Bevets

Are you suggesting the ACLU is infallible? Should free speech be permitted in high school classrooms?

Merely providing evidence to contradict the popular notion that the ACLU is anti-religious. Personal opinion is that freedom of speech should not be fully extended to students

Bevets

Should biology teachers be permitted to speak freely?


ninjakirby

Everyone should be permitted to speak freely, but there is a time and place. A Biology teachers job is to teach Biology, and that is all they should do, during class time. Outside of that, I don't really care, though if I found out my childs teacher was in favor of ID, or Creationism, or I dunno.. Astrology or Homeopathy, I might seriously consider having my kid placed in a different class - after speaking with the teacher in person, of course.

Please give other examples where a large percentage of the population (students and teachers) rejects the subject matter and teachers are ONLY permitted to teach evidence that supports the disputed subject matter?
 
2008-06-07 12:12:12 AM
I'm back from IHOP. Did I miss anything?

Religious fanatics still think there is a wizard in the sky? Check.

Smart people know better? Check.
 
2008-06-07 12:16:33 AM
Bevets: Please give other examples where a large percentage of the population (students and teachers) rejects the subject matter and teachers are ONLY permitted to teach evidence that supports the disputed subject matter?

Why do you think it's so important to us that we suppress your evidence? Can you cite any other modern examples where legitimate scientists have conspired for any length of time to bury a new theory?
 
2008-06-07 12:16:41 AM
Samsaran

Beliefs aside, your profile contains line after line of incessant whining about why you hate this site and who you judge the average reader of your profile to be. You clearly hate this site and come back to it because it "amuses" you? You devolve into calling others stupid, smug or condescending and yet smug condescension is the only manner in which I've seen you communicate with others. What ground do you have to stand on when calling the postings of others childish?
 
2008-06-07 12:33:06 AM
JQPublic: Religious fanatics still think there is a wizard in the sky? Check.

Actually a lot of religious people don't think that. Granted most are in Asia, but it's not a standard feature of religion.
 
2008-06-07 12:36:07 AM
Man On Pink Corner

Why do you think it's so important to us that we suppress your evidence?

The evidence wasn't suppressed. It was shown to be wrong.
 
Displayed 50 of 835 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report