BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 03:27 PM

Gee... if there was any doubt we've gone on enough, trust Greg to prove it.

click

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 03:19 PM

I repeat that I treat him as honest and sincere,

A lot of the members of the Ku Klux Klan were/are honest and sincere, Bill. So what?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 03:17 PM

Then at least we'll know whether he's dangerous or has just chosen to be stupid by choosing ignorance.

He's both, and we know it already.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 03:12 PM

I dunno... there's always more that can be said, but it is getting pretty repetitious.
Pete has agreed that he does accept the authority of the bible, and several of us have make clear that we don't... with varying degrees of intensity.

I have tried very hard to get Pete to use standard terminology.. or at least NOT to use the terms in ways that distort the common meanings, but some of his beliefs seem to require playing freely with definitions in order to accuse me of making the same errors I accuse him of.

He is committed to a certain viewpoint, and I never expected him to change them. I repeat that I treat him as honest and sincere, even with our basic disagreements. I would far rather compare opinions with someone like Pete than deal with the many others who ask toward me as some of you have done toward Pete. We all live in this world, and we'd better find sane ways to at least understand each others viewpoint, whether we like it or not.

I am not entering the crazy part of craft show season, and will have limited time to follow this, so I will ask for the thread to close.... 1000 ought to have given everyone a chance, hmmm?

So... some time later today...

(Of course anyone can start a thread... even Pete. I may occasionally post about some new discovery in science.)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 02:37 PM

On another topic, I can't decide what is more dangerous: pete, or debating with pete.

have to agree with you there... you can no conduct a one sided debate, only make corrective statements to clarify where the errors in logic or fact are found.

as for projection... this is likely my last chance to make clear my position regarding pete's behavior.

everyone at some point engages in passive-aggressive behavior, just as we also lose our tempers or tell little white lies. Pointing out said behavior is NOT branding them as pathological liers, etc. That's is your presumption.

That said... for all of Bill's attempts to "debate" pete... has anyone seen an iota of change? There's a reason for that... and I put forward my guesses as to the underlying reasons.

I believe that Joe is very sincere in his beliefs and does not need to try to undermine another's viewpoint to valdiate his own. Maybe pete should give that a try... it does seem to be more in keeping with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,John P
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:21 PM

Every state in the U.S. has a constitutional requirement to educate children. We also have a constitutional requirement to keep religion and government separate from each other. Religious schools, besides being child abuse, are unconstitutional. This includes religious home-schooling.

The Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, and many other denominations are part of a well-organized and well-funded conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution of the United States by chipping away, until it's gone, the separation of church and state. They are winning.

On another topic, I can't decide what is more dangerous: pete, or debating with pete. After all his willful ignorance, it should be plain than he won't learn anything. The only interest we should have in the inside of pete's brain is to find out whether or not he thinks his religion should be reflected in our laws. Then at least we'll know whether he's dangerous or has just chosen to be stupid by choosing ignorance. What's everyone else's excuse? It just looks to me like you all are willing to allow pete to be taken seriously by having a "debate" with him. There is no debate, and that should be the only answer to anything he says: "There is no debate".

If you just want a venue to formulate and express your views, you can do that just fine without pete. If you want to make sure his idiocy doesn't go unanswered, the only reply needed is "there is no debate". In any event, it should be clear by now that "debating" with pete is about as worthwhile as debating philosophy with your dog. "Arf Arf whine whine wow arf". Have you changed your dog's mind yet? Actually, debating with a dog is better -- at least my dog acts like she's listening.

Please stop feeding the willfully ignorant. It just makes them feel relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:19 PM

It's not pete's fault, either, that he was raised without being taught how to think critically or evaluate sources. He's a vic, not a perp, to use TV terminology.

It's sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:17 PM

dmcg, yep, you got "modern" right. what you did not, was the context. my point ,was, that having belief in creation did nothing to hamper scientists.

Post 994, I believe: nearly stopping time!

I did get both the meaning and the context, I see from your response. It did not hamper them (much) then, but it would still hamper them now.

Let me give an analogy. A group of people are climbing a cliff. Naturally, they start from the bottom, and each metre they climb is hard won. Having got a very substantial way up this cliff, and learned a lot of the nooks and crannies, and the hidden hand-holds, a voice calls out that we should start at the bottom again, because the people who started were able to make progress even though they lacked of knowledge of these handholds...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:07 PM

"It was not their fault."

My ire wasn't directed at the pupils, but the gooners who think religion should be taught in science lessons; whomever they are. Hence my sentence underneath; kids deserve the chance to get off the right foot in life and form their own opinions either way. Science in science classes, religion in RE. The only way you defeat ignorance and superstition is by education. Arm people with the facts and the techniques to make up their own mind on things. After that, it's up to them.

For what it's worth, I think philosophy should be taught in schools in all years. We are not encouraged to question enough in school and challenge ideas in a creative and considered manner. People need to engage in some form of philosophical enquire about what they and others are and are doing; which is as true for science as it is the rest of life.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:00 PM

" ...though I am getting my arguments from creation sites, I am not saying that creation is true because they say so, but I am using specific arguments gleaned from them ..."

I don't really see the difference; you're still relying on 'authority'. And the likes of Stu, sciencegeek and others have given you lots of "specific arguments" gleaned from real scientists and you still consistently ignore them because they don't supply you with the conclusions that you want.

" ... I do take the bible as authoritive , but in case you have not noticed, when debating non believers [in God that is !] I have used specific non biblical arguments."

But all of your 'arguments' are based on your (strange) belief that all of the myths and parables in the Bible are literally true; that belief is the basis for all of your posts. That sounds like "arguing from authority" to me!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 12:56 PM

"...know the evidence for it......" then keith you list a few things, but do not say how those things are evidence for evolutionism.
in fact creationists use the same as evidence for creation and intelligent design.
dmcg, yep, you got "modern" right. what you did not, was the context.
my point ,was, that having belief in creation did nothing to hamper scientists. bill nye made a major play on that angle ,and ken ham demonstrated that it is far from the case of the technological poverty he imagines , historically or currently.
but I have demonstrated how evolutionary think has delayed /hindered science. and of course, Darwin was not the first by a long chalk to conjecture evolutionism/long ages, though he was the first to gain popularity for it.
heres a link I stumbled across when trying to find info on your devices evolution idea.
some of it, I am not sure how it fits exactly with either of our views but interesting stuff.
www.viewzone.complasticbrain22.html
I am quite sure st paul would not support your syncretism !

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 12:45 PM

My fervor against creationists is anything but religious.

But it is fervid.

Not all strong emotions are religion.

IF I am infuriated by idiocy it isn't religious.

If I am impatient with willful ignorance it isn't religious.

If I mind people's ability to think being undermined by their own education (or lack thereof), it isn't religious.

It isn't ritualized.
It isn't dogmatic.
And it isn't based on a supernatural explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 12:27 PM

re shimrods post after mine....the difference is, is that though I am getting my arguments from creation sites, I am not saying that creation is true because they say so, but I am using specific arguments gleaned from them......and I should add, just the ones that are less technical. what most of you do is claim that because most scientists hold[ to some version] of evolutionism that this is of itself evidence. it is of course ludicrous to think the status quo must be always right, as obviously it has been wrong frequently through history. and while you all will agree with that, the religious fervour displayed against creationists, imo, is evidence that evolutionism is more a philosophical mindset than it is science.
but, you cry. the western world will go to pot if creation is given even the slightest voice. considering you are scientists, that is unfounded and irrelevant. it is true or false, regardless of whatever fanciful dreads you might conjecture !. infact, it is true or false even if you were justified in your conjectures as to consequences of creation belief.
and yes, I do take the bible as authoritive , but in case you have not noticed, when debating non believers [in God that is !] I have used specific non biblical arguments.
bill, not sure that soft tissue in old bones is that rare anymore, but we should not expect to always find it. it is a bonus that it lasted thousands of years, that it might survive myo is stretching credibility except to those committed to, and" having a vested interest" in the evolutionary story. your claim that it now makes sense is only an assertion unless you can show how it could defy what operational science was not expecting.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 11:52 AM

Well BUGGER that makes TWO thoughtful posts that vanished into the ether! Oh, does that mean gods don't want me to make this post? I will go away and do something else and come back, as it is annoying me that I keep hitting the wrong key and getting away from this page before finishing what I'm trying to say!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: robomatic
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 11:50 AM

Time to move this thread above the line:


Origin Of Species


by Chris Smither

Well, Eve told Adam
Snakes? I've had 'em!
Let's get outta here!
Go raise this family someplace outta town.

They left the garden just in time
With the landlord cussin' right behind.
They headed East,
and they finally settled down.

One thing led to another:
A bunch of sons,
One killed his brother
And they kicked him out with nothin' but his clothes.

And the human race survived
'Cause all those brothers found wives
But where they came from
Ain't nobody knows.


Then came the flood
Go figure...
Just like New Orleans only bigger.
No one who couldn't swim would make it through.

The lucky ones were on a boat
Think "circus"
And then make it float
I hope nobody pulls the plug on you!

How they fed that crowd is a mystery.
It ain't down in the history,
but it's a cinch they didn't
live on cakes and jam.

Lions don't eat cabbage
And in spite of that old adage,
I ain't never seen one
Lie down with a lamb.

Well, Charlie Darwin looked so far
Into the way things are.
He caught a glimpse of God's
unfolding plan.

God said: "I'll make some DNA"
They can use it any way they want
From paramecium
Right up to man."

"They'll have sex
And mixed up sections of their code
They'll have mutations...
The whole thing works like clockwork over time."

"I'll just sit back in the shade
While everyone gets laid.
That's what I call
Intelligent design."

Yeah, you and your cat named Felix,
Both wrapped up in that double helix,
Is what we call
Intelligent design.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 08:54 AM

"I can only counter by again offering to ,again, quote evolutionist scientists that admit their bias that only naturalistic explanations are accepted, whatever the evidence."

More desperate and pathetic bullshit from pete. There is no 'bias' towards 'naturalistic explanations' because no evidence for the supernatural exists (except in the minds of the religious)! Unless, that is, you've got some (convincing) evidence for the existence of the supernatural, pete? Come on, present us with the evidence for the supernatural, pete, we can't wait to see it!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 08:02 AM

I'm with Stu when it comes to child abuse.

Especially the obligations of teachers.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 06:56 AM

I pondered that sentence for a while as well, stu. As far as I can understand it, "modern" means since Galileo and the claim appears to be that they didn't subscribe to his theory before it was written. That is, I think we will all agree, not too surprising. But that is the nature of learning anything. You work within the way you understand the world until find out something new and then you have to change what you thought. As st Paul said "when I was a child I thought like a child... Now I am a man I have put aside childish things". That applies to society as much as individuals in my view.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 06:47 AM

Not "sod em" (pupils).
It was not their fault.
Religion IS kept out of Science lessons, I just chose not to make things more difficult for them than necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 06:17 AM

"if not most of modern science was conducted by biblical creationists"

What??? That's trolling pete, plain and simple. Total and utter bullshit. Show me how you came to that ridiculous conclusion. I've never met a creationist scientist, and I've met a lot of scientists.


"his also gives the lie to the strange idea that being a creationist will hamper scientific progress."

Creationism is NOT science. A creationist scientist doesn't seek the truth, they seek to confirm their own preconceived dogma based on an old story written down by some desert tribesmen.


"and they call that science?"

No they don't. We don't teach native Australian or Shinto creation myths (check these out, they're far more beautiful and profound in concept and story than that Abrahamic folktale) in science classes for the same reason; it has rag all to do with what science is how it is conducted.


"When I taught evolution in schools, I was aware that some pupils had issues with it.
Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims."

Sod 'em. Sod any religious type who wants their 'truth' to b e taught as science. It's not and should be kept out of science classes.

We have to give our kids a chance before the fundamentalists get their evil claws into their education. This is why (to the befuddlement of the Christians here) those of us who are involved in science are so vociferous in defending our views. The future is under threat from people who want to take the world back to the middle ages, with the church ruling everyone and fundamentalists dictating how we live, abandoning reason and our innate curiosity.

You start with literalist interpretations of your chosen sacred text and your fundamentalist principles and you end up with ISIS. End of. Two sides of the coin of ignorance. Anyone who is a literalist or fundamentalist (i.e. a creationist) is on that slippery slope.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 04:29 AM

When I taught evolution in schools, I was aware that some pupils had issues with it.
Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims.
I acknowledged that many people do not accept it.
They also have to know the evidence for it, fossils, DNA and observed adaptation.
They had to know about variation, mutation, and both natural and artificial selection.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 08:23 PM

"..your arguments are ... that it must be true, because most scientists say so."

That's a total misunderstanding of what I say, and what scientists in general think. You continue to warp the meaning of "argument from authority".

One- It is not 'necessarily' true, but if one is doing science, is is best to follow where the tests, measurements and analysis leads in the process of taking a theory and seeing if it stands up to scrutiny. What "most scientists say" is where the research leads. If that changes, they say something a bit different. They do not simply all march in orderly files to each new idea, they double-check each other... and themselves, and *as a group* they take seriously evidence that seems to be a problem... such as soft tissue in old bones. It turned out to be a rare instance where preservation happened in ways that surprised them, but once checked & double checked, it all made sense.... to everyone except those who had a vested interest in NOT having it make sense.

When evaluating complex data and overlapping fields of study, isn't it useful to know that "most scientists" are in basic agreement? Why do you want to clutch tightly to an opinion that only a few accept? You and the minority have different theories... but you have very few ways to test YOUR ideas, so you content yourselves with trying to cast doubt on ANY research that leads in directions that contradicts YOUR favored 'authority'... which has changed little, even when various religious 'authorities' have accepted those deluded scientists.

Me? I'll wager against Pascal and take my chances.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 07:04 PM

this bias has infiltrated the UK public school system where evolutionism is protected by law. questioning it is effectively banned,
and they call that science ?.

Ah, the delusion of the wilfully pig-ignorant. Evolution is "not protected by law" any more than any other aspect of the school curriculum is protected by law. To teach biology without including evolution would be akin to having a pub with no beer. I hate organised religion, but a curriculum that did not include telling children about organised religion in a neutral way would be a travesty. And questioning anything at all in school (except the existence of God - ironic, eh, pete?) is not banned. Education without permitting critical questioning is not education. That's why we have religious instruction and why there is no such thing as God-based religious education.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 06:28 PM

(Still wonder how pete grew up so ignorant

pete has CHOSEN to be ignorant, and embraces ignorance as a badge of honor and of superiority over other mere mortals who rely on facts and science.

The God delusion in spades.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 06:06 PM

You keep banging on and on and on and on ...about "arguing from authority", pete, but isn't that exactly what you are doing? After all, don't you rely on quoting from creationist 'scientists' who you believe to be 'experts'? And don't you rely on (on what you believe to be) the authority of the Bible? Or have I got it all wrong? Do you, in fact, spend lots of time in the field painstakingly examining fossil beds and their stratigraphy? Or do you spend your time in the lab subjecting interesting samples to a variety of dating methods or following fruit flies or bacteria through many, many generations. If, though, you're not a 'hands-on' practical scientist, then, surely, you're 'merely' arguing from authority and, presumably, we can ignore everything you say ... have I got that right, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 05:07 PM

well bill, I am not opening a music store, I am having a discussion with you. I think I read you, and I think you, me. having said that---on your last paragraph about pascals wager , there seems to be a mix up. one of us got the wrong meaning of the what of the who was the "easier way".
but when I say that you are arguing from authority and numbers, I mean that your arguments are rarely specifics but that it must be true, because most scientists say so. if that fails your textbook definition, it does not change the point.
when we describe ourselves as creationists, we are certainly not ashamed of it, however when evolutionists use the term they invariably contrast it with "scientist", as though being a scientist means being evolutionist , or holding that belief [ though claimed as fact ]. this is somewhat bizarre, considering that much, if not most of modern science was conducted by biblical creationists. this also gives the lie to the strange idea that being a creationist will hamper scientific progress.
the bulk of your main post was again claiming that creationists filter the data and evolutionists don't [ or someone corrects them ].
I can only counter by again offering to ,again, quote evolutionist scientists that admit their bias that only naturalistic explanations are accepted, whatever the evidence.

this bias has infiltrated the UK public school system where evolutionism is protected by law. questioning it is effectively banned,
and they call that science ?.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 04:29 PM

""those who agree with modern science also tend to be more progressive and also support equal rights for women and minorities, open government, social support programs and less so fighting wars and giving more wealth and power to the 1%.""

And, that group also includes many people who also hold a belief in a Diety, many who also are assiciated with an organized religion, and, btw, also agree with "modern science. That leaves a minority of those with a deity belief, that is contrary to evolution, and mostly aligned with Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 11:28 AM

"Now, if I were a conspiracy theorist I would point out the definite advantages to government of having an ignorant and fearful polulace to govern..."

LOL... or better yet, a scapegoat to blame. or use the guilt by association card...

those who agree with modern science also tend to be more progressive and also support equal rights for women and minorities, open government, social support programs and less so fighting wars and giving more wealth and power to the 1%.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 11:08 AM

Yeah, I thought this was a purely American issue. (Still wonder how pete grew up so ignorant of how to think since he's British, apparently.)

Freedom of religion should not mean freedom from actual information that may contradict your faith. Not to mention that it doesn't HAVE to contradict anyone's faith. Why not see the world as it is and believe deity made it that way, rather than denying that the world actually is as it is? Can't gods do everything? Why can't they have made the world 6000 years ago to look as if we evolved from microbes over a billion years or more? Then you can study biology as it is, and still even be a young earth creationist. I just don't see why they have to deny reality instead. Makes no sense.

Now, if I were a conspiracy theorist I would point out the definite advantages to government of having an ignorant and fearful polulace to govern...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 06:59 AM

"I did not make my statements rashly and gave my reasoning for them."

My opinion is you do not have enough direct information to base such judgement on, regardless of the personal experience you seem to state. That, in my opinion, would clearly put your judgement, in this case, in the "rash" catagory.

As to a possible purpose of such rash and over-extended reasoning, I have only related comments here to base my own "rash" personal opinion on, nothing more.

Personally, I respect other people and would never make such a serious claim about another person without more direct "professional" information-more than one would have access to on a Mudcat post. I know of no "professional" in my life experience that would do such a thing, based on such a limited infirmation set-and, like you, I have been exposed to a significant number of professionals from many fields throught my work and personal life.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 06:43 AM

Thank you for that link, DMcG. I'm pleased to note that it represents a hearty kick in the teeth for the forces of unreason!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 06:32 AM

good to see that science is not being distorted on your side of the pond, I do envy you. We still have a long fight on our hands over here.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 04:24 AM

I see I am behind the times

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 04:16 AM

UK!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 04:14 AM

Evolution is a compulsory part of the curriculum in UKRAINE and must be taught in all schools, enforced by the inspectorate.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 03:45 AM

Wait, is this really a problem in the UK?

To nothing like the extent it appears to be (at this distance) in places like Kansas, no. But there were certainly 'creationist academies' established when all the rules were changed: I have little idea if they have thrived or not, or how many more have opened since. I am sure google searches would help.

There was also a case last summer of a school which had submitted students for a biology course but had not taught them evolution. Naturally, they were unable to answer the questions. The schools protested and the examining board declared they would ensure the pupils were not disadvantaged in the results by this. To my mind, that's completely wrong. The school had disadvantaged them, it was not up to the examining board to disguise the fact.

However, it is all part of a much wider question: to what extent should holy books, of whatever religious body, override the rest of society? And there are precious few parts of the world where that isn't an important question.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 12:43 AM

Sciencegeek:

Not intending to disrespect your profession nor training, but from your statements, what you may be experiencing, related to Pete, is a perceptual set (top down processing) related to your job training and experience?

Good grief, do you think I am some kind of an insensitive twit? And in the end, what do we actually have but our experience to base our judgements upon? Training is merely a way of sharing insights gained from the experience of others.

So my response to your comment is this... I do not live in some isolated bubble...

in my 63 years on this planet I have known a great number of individuals from many different cultures and time spans including my own grandparents who were born in the 1880's. I have personal experience with prejudice, segregation, homophobia, stereotyping, poverty, the homeless street people, people with bipolar disorder, passive aggressive people and sexual predators. I have personally known murder victims and their killers. I have had to stand back and watch family members slowly kill themselves with alcohol. From all of my experiences, I have tried to learn from them and better understand what happened and why. The only real thing we can leave behind in this world is to have made it a little better for having been here... and if you don't understand why something happens, how can you hope to prevent it from happening again. Or at least how to deal with it.

I do not judge people by the color of their skin, their social or ethnic background or even their religion. I base my determinations on their actions... and posting to this thread is an action, the content of that action serves as the basis for my "judgement".

I did not make my statements rashly and gave my reasoning for them. You are free to make your own conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 11:12 PM

When I got my BA in biology and environmental studies back in'73, I had some really great teachers that shared their enthusiasm and love of learning. A small school that provided a top notch education... good enough that it wasn't that hard to score top grades when I took my Graduate Entrance Exams. I wasn't planning on graduate school, but it never hurts to keep your options open.

The oil embargo and poor job market saw me back in school in '75 in the SUNY system - State University of New York. It was in SUNY-Fredonia that I first encountered watered down science... it was a graduate level course in Evolution. The textbook was a joke, but the real eye opener was during one class where we were to do short presentations on some aspect of the subject and follow up with a Q & A. I did mine on the role of random factors - mainly because the text glossed over so much.

So there I am going on about population genetics and gene distribution with the Professor constantly interjecting strange comments. I thought he was acting as a "devil's advocate", though why he didn't have the courtesy of waiting until the Q & A was eluding me. Call me dim, but after the caliber of teachers I had as an undergrad, I just wasn't expecting that a graduate level course in Evolution would be taught by a believer in Divine Intervention.

It turned out that he had recently survived colon cancer surgery, regarded that as a miracle and had found god. And lost his scientific objectivity.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 08:41 PM

When I went to public school, there was no mention of religion, nor was there with my kids- and I suspect the same is true today.Science was taught from primary to grade 12- though, on reflection, the caliber of the teaching was not excellent. But, that is another,unrelated, issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 08:30 PM

Wait, is this really a problem in the UK?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 08:12 PM

Some public secondary schools may *mention* creationism as an "alternative theory," but science teachers are far more likely to avoid the whole topic of evolution as "too controversial." They don't want to end up debating the parents.

But because the United States is not a "theocracy," public school teachers cannot legitimately "teach" creationism (and I don't know what percentage even wants to, at least in a science class). What's more, dedicated creationist parents can home-school or, if they can afford it, send their kids to a private fundamentalist religious school.

Why, what a dreadfully backward country you live in. What are you going to do about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 08:09 PM

It is fine to note and briefly explain that two different views exist. There's no good can come from pretending that one viewpoint is not there, especially when many of the students in the room come from very religious backgrounds, but in public school, it needs to be made very clear that all they do is present the standard scientific method and mainstream conclusions. The religious viewpoint WILL be offered to them at home & in church.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 08:01 PM

But because the United States is not a "theocracy," public school teachers cannot legitimately "teach" creationism

Bullshit. Its happening even as we speak. You'd better check the curriculae of any number of state school board mandates, starting with Kansas.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 07:38 PM

If they've been "poisoned," it was far more likely at home.

Some public secondary schools may *mention* creationism as an "alternative theory," but science teachers are far more likely to avoid the whole topic of evolution as "too controversial." They don't want to end up debating the parents.

But because the United States is not a "theocracy," public school teachers cannot legitimately "teach" creationism (and I don't know what percentage even wants to, at least in a science class). What's more, dedicated creationist parents can home-school or, if they can afford it, send their kids to a private fundamentalist religious school.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 07:35 PM

Steve, I can see deleted messages, too, and there aren't any from you in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 06:40 PM

real science is taught in all but a minute fraction of colleges

Colleges??? Yeah, but by then the kids have been poisoned by the fundagelical creationist bullshit foisted upon them in primary and secondary PUBLIC schools - not only home schooled kids are the victims of this bullshit. vide Kansas, et. al.

Nice try, but too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 06:24 PM

But posts that are intentionally deleted are visible to me, and to most of the moderators.

"Most"?? Yeah, whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 06:10 PM

Lighter, based on a number of home schooled kids, I've met, you are not too far off. What is amazing is the number of small christian schools that cater to separate sects. They can't seem to agree even among themselves... in spite of using the same bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 04:13 PM

For the benefit of non-American readers, the United States is far from being a theocracy, and real science is taught in all but a minute fraction of colleges.

I have the feeling, however, that a good many home-schoolers brainwash their children against evolution.

That (and similar reasons) is why those particular parents home-school them in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 03:58 PM

By the way - are you ready for the faith vs reason debate yet, pete?

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HAH!!!! Good one, Shimrod!