This is depressing

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/06/evolution.schools.ap/

Leave out the facts, throw in some ID or creationism, and what are the kids left with? They are being robbed of a decent education.

I've said this before, they have catholic and other private schools where they teach what they want to. We don't make them teach evolution. Why can't they stay out of the public schools? Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State? They don't even understand how evolution works, but they still attack it. Evolution is about the evolution of life, not about the the origins of life. That is biogenesis. They don't teach that in schools.

Why are they so threatened by education? They don't trust their faith anymore, so they have to erode school systems? They can go to church as much as they want to and learn about ID and creationism. I'm really horrified that their intolerance is now allowed in the classroom and under the guise of "science".

 

[TeaBag420]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/06/evolution.schools.ap/

Leave out the facts, throw in some ID or creationism, and what are the kids left with? They are being robbed of a decent education.

I've said this before, they have catholic and other private schools where they teach what they want to. We don't make them teach evolution. Why can't they stay out of the public schools? Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State? They don't even understand how evolution works, but they still attack it. Evolution is about the evolution of life, not about the the origins of life. That is biogenesis. They don't teach that in schools.

Why are they so threatened by education? They don't trust their faith anymore, so they have to erode school systems? They can go to church as much as they want to and learn about ID and creationism. I'm really horrified that their intolerance is now allowed in the classroom and under the guise of "science".

Where to begin with the Enemy from the North?

Kids are ALREADY being robbed of a quality education; a little more or less evolution isn't going to matter.

Presumably by "catholic" you mean "Catholic". Must be a lacuna in your education. I offer you my correction as a lagniappe.

"Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State?" What happened to it was Thomas "I'ma git me a black wumman" Jefferson wrote the phrase in a letter and that was the end of it. It's not part of the U.S. Constitution; I don't know what kind of rules you Canucks play by.

"They don't even understand how evolution works, but they still attack it." If you DO understand how evolution works, I see a Nobel prize in your future.

Maybe a little less time worrying about how tots are trained (G.H.W. Bush: "My first thoughts went to the kids, the kids in the schools.") and a little more thought spent on Canadian government censorship of publications entering Canada, including, wait for it...... SPORTS ILLUSTRATED.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Yes, we do understand how evolution works.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=48297

You ought to be alarmed, you show evidence of the erosion of the education, and I mean science education. Why would you think we don't understand evolution? You don't, but others do.

If you want to discuss your other topics, then I suggest you start other threads. Enemy of the North? Rather a radical viewpoint.

Let me guess, you don't mind this invasion of education by this horrible ignorance. It's a minor issue to you? Compared to what? Math, English? Then start a thread on why these subjects are now so poorly taught.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

You ought to be alarmed, you show evidence of the erosion of the education, and I mean science education

Hey, we need janitors and truck drivers too, you know.

I have come to the conclusion that anything as advanced as the subject of biology is way beyond what our public schools are capable of teaching. I'm thinking a better alternative would be a course on science itself, beginning with some of the terms it uses, such as law, hypothesis, and theory, and how these differ from the way they are used in common language, an overview of scientific methodology, and a basic description of the peer review process. Maybe even some introductory logic. Actual content is really pretty useless without this context anyway. If we wanted to get ambitious, we might try a little taste of the history and philosophy of science. Placing these tools in the hands of students would be the surest innoculation I can think of against pathological memes like creationism, and such a proposal would provide creationists with nothing they could get traction against. They'd be delighted just to know we weren't teaching evolution (but of course we would, we'd just be doing it implicitly).

Of course, such a curriculum would depend a lot on our educators themselves being able demonstrate a better grasp of these fundamentals than could the average person in the street, and I have some reservations about that.

In the final analysis, I think we're really talking day care.

 

[TeaBag420]

Yes, we do understand how evolution works.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=48297

Well, no, we don't. There are several competing THEORIES, of which natural selection is the best known, but the matter has not been resolved. No Nobel for you, I guess.

How very helpful to link to a thread that starts off by asserting that there are amoeba [sic] in the center of the earth and on asteroids.

You ought to be alarmed, you show evidence of the erosion of the education, and I mean science education. Why would you think we don't understand evolution? You don't, but others do.

Vide supra.

If you want to discuss your other topics, then I suggest you start other threads. Enemy of the North? Rather a radical viewpoint.

Okay, instead of telling you to blow me, I'll simply stick with pointing out that you're wrong on a major part of your argument.

Let me guess, you don't mind this invasion of education by this horrible ignorance. It's a minor issue to you? Compared to what? Math, English? Then start a thread on why these subjects are now so poorly taught.

Yes, it's a minor issue compared to math and English. I don't take orders from you Sparky, so I'll continue with your thread, thank you very much. If you abdicate the teaching of your children to the government, you deserve the education they get. It's a form of legal child abuse, and if you choose to engage in it, it doesn't affect me or my children one way or the other. And yes, I would like fries with that.

 

[kedo1981]

Competing theories, oh please do tell

 

[TeaBag420]

Competing theories, oh please do tell

You, on the other hand, do get a "BLOW ME" for bringing some attitude up in this joint after fair warning.

This has not been news since I first learned to read about fifty years ago. You might want to look into reading. It's really kewl.

Since you are apparently Steven Hawking, have your wife take a minute out from beating you to enter the following:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mechanism+of+evolution&btnG=Google+Search

Did I forget to say "BLOW ME"? No, it appears I didn't.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, no, we don't. There are several competing THEORIES, of which natural selection is the best known, but the matter has not been resolved. No Nobel for you, I guess.

Although I am not looking for a Nobel prize, I would like to hear what competing theories you are talking about.

And how they measure up to evolution. (Natural selection is only part of the theory of evolution, btw).

 

[KingMerv00]

Jeez I'm sensing anger here. I haven't been posting here all that long but it seems to me that teabag is always feeling alittle upset.

Anyway, I think teaching kids alittle on the origins of life would not be such a bad idea. It could easily be taught in high school.

 

[TeaBag420]

Although I am not looking for a Nobel prize, I would like to hear what competing theories you are talking about.

And how they measure up to evolution. (Natural selection is only part of the theory of evolution, btw).

Since I posted the link above already, please have your caregiver direct you to it.

Kindly keep in mind that the discussion was on the mechanism of evolution, not its existence.

To paraphrase that mad pimp Jefferson, "I tremble when I reflect that the Lord grades on reading comprehension."

KingMerv00 wrote:

"Anyway, I think teaching kids alittle on the origins of life would not be such a bad idea. It could easily be taught in high school."

I would happily take on such a task, were it not illegal in the 50 States. Oh, you meant SCIENCE. Dumbass wasn't objecting to lack of science, he was objecting to teaching of non-science. Mainly because he prefers to abdicate the responsibility for his spawns' education to the State. Which of course means he can't send the spawn to Catholic school and just tell them "That God stuff? Just ignore it. But you damn sure better learn your times tables!" It takes more than spewing your spew to raise your spawn. Enemy from the North prefers to let Daddy State take care of that, then complain about how it's done.

 

[CFLarsen]

Since I posted the link above already, please have your caregiver direct you to it.

Kindly keep in mind that the discussion was on the mechanism of evolution, not its existence.

To paraphrase that mad pimp Jefferson, "I tremble when I reflect that the Lord grades on reading comprehension."

What kind of snooty answer is that? You argue by Google search?

Try again, please, and in your own words:

• What competing theories you are talking about?
• How do they measure up to evolution?

This is a board for debating. So debate, please. Argue your case. Let's investigate the evidence.

 

[BillHoyt]

Well, no, we don't. There are several competing THEORIES, of which natural selection is the best known, but the matter has not been resolved. No Nobel for you, I guess.

What are you talking about? "Natural selection" is the organizing principle of modern biology.

Okay, instead of telling you to bl** me, I'll simply stick with pointing out that you're wrong on a major part of your argument.

How about you put forth evidence for your side of the discussion?

Yes, it's a minor issue compared to math and English. I don't take orders from you Sparky, so I'll continue with your thread, thank you very much. If you abdicate the teaching of your children to the government, you deserve the education they get. It's a form of legal child abuse, and if you choose to engage in it, it doesn't affect me or my children one way or the other. And yes, I would like fries with that.

Stop shifting the argument. The question here is about truth versus fiction. The question here is what is to be taught, regardless of any considerations of public versus private schools. Teaching is the two-fold art of informing the student of what is known and enlightening the student about how to garner more, trustworthy information. Creationism, on the other hand, is religious disinformation.

 

[Dancing David]

Two responses that show a major lack of critical thinking.

1. Removing evolution from the text books is bull poopie. There are no legitimate competing theories. This may be unknown to the trolls but it is the commonly accepted theory in scientific journals, intelligent design does not even come close and in numbers of peer reviewed journal articles it is very low.
This would be comparable to resurecting anti-relativity and the ther in physics text books.

2. It is really ignorant for someone to say that we will always need the uneducated and then just attack the education system. Dymanic you made a bogus assertion that teachers are not qualified to teach, more Urban Legend from the President?
What a bizzare class oriented statement to say that we need the uneducated, you are aware that even entry level jobs require a median level of reading and comprehension skills, heck you can't even planys and harvest beans with a computer anymore.

 

[hammegk]

You hard-core anti-theists should critically consider if this evolution issue is another part of the "values" problem that continues to amaze, and then defeat, Democrats.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Dymanic you made a bogus assertion that teachers are not qualified to teach, more Urban Legend from the President?

All I asserted was that I had reservations. One reason for those reservations is the experience of a recent conversation I had with a (person claiming to be a) 7th grade science teacher (admittedly anecdotal evidence) who was arguing that life on earth violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. He graciously accepted my clarification on that issue, but I think my complaint here -- that this should not have been necessary -- is valid.

What a bizzare class oriented statement to say that we need the uneducated, you are aware that even entry level jobs require a median level of reading and comprehension skills, heck you can't even planys and harvest beans with a computer anymore.

The sarcastic undertone to my post was intended to be somewhat subtle. Thank you for confirming that I was successful there. Despite this thread's location in the critical thinking forum, the thread title suggests that this is actually emotional thinking, and since this can become frustrating for me as well, I was falling in line with that. The ability to think critically does not preclude our emotional nature, and must always be performed in the face of that.

Toward elevating this to the level of critical thinking which, as you quite correctly pointed out, was mostly lacking in my rant, help me out by answering these True or False questions, and point out where you feel I may have gone astray:

1) In a large sector of the American population, knowledge about science is inadequate to provide even a basic understanding of evolution.

2) The level of understanding seen in that sector may be taken as a reasonably accurate reflection of the effectiveness of our public education system in teaching this subject.

3) The effectiveness of our public education system in teaching this subject may be taken as a reasonably accurate measure of the level of science knowledge possessed by the educators themselves.

 

[CFLarsen]

Bumped for TeaBag420.

 

[Anders]

Well, no, we don't. There are several competing THEORIES, of which natural selection is the best known, but the matter has not been resolved. No Nobel for you, I guess.

There is no Nobel prize in Biology. As you didn't know that, you lack in education.

And to educate you, these are the prize catagories:
-Physics
-Physiology or Medecin
-Chemistry
-Litterature
-Peace
-Economics which wasn't in Alfred Nobel's will but was added after a request from the Swedish Riksbank, which also fund the economics prize.

The prize cermony is taking place every 10:th of december in the Stockholm concert hall at Hötorget, and the dinner and dance is taking place at the Stockholm Townhall.

 

[TeaBag420]

What kind of snooty answer is that? You argue by Google search?

Try again, please, and in your own words:

• What competing theories you are talking about?
• How do they measure up to evolution?

This is a board for debating. So debate, please. Argue your case. Let's investigate the evidence.

Please try to exercise the reading skills of a reasonably intelligent fourth grader.

1. The topic was the MECHANISM of evolution, not the existence of evolution.

2. There are competing theories.

3. I am not going to read to you. You have outgrown
that.

4. You DO get one.

 

[TeaBag420]

There is no Nobel prize in Biology. As you didn't know that, you lack in education.

And to educate you, these are the prize catagories:
-Physics
-Physiology or Medecin
-Chemistry
-Litterature
-Peace
-Economics which wasn't in Alfred Nobel's will but was added after a request from the Swedish Riksbank, which also fund the economics prize.

The prize cermony is taking place every 10:th of december in the Stockholm concert hall at Hötorget, and the dinner and dance is taking place at the Stockholm Townhall.

And as you are no doubt aware, dickweed, Nobel and
"Nobel" prizes are often award years after the work they honor. Also, strictly speaking, there is no Nobel Prize for Economics.

 

[CFLarsen]

And as you are no doubt aware, dickweed, Nobel and "Nobel" prizes are often award years after the work they honor.

That has nothing to do with whether or not there is a Nobel prize in biology. You claimed there was. There isn't. Stop talking around the issue and admit your error.

Also, strictly speaking, there is no Nobel Prize for Economics.

Yes, there is:

The Bank of Sweden (Sveriges Riksbank) Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel was first awarded to Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen in 1969 for their development and application of dynamic models in the analysis of economic processes. The Prize has since been awarded to works ranging from methodologies and theories used in studying the efficient use of economic and financial resources, to macroeconomic performance and economic policy, development economics, international trade and the role of information.
Source: http://nobelprize.org/economics/