Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientific Illiteracy and the Partisan Takeover of Biology
National Center for Science Education ^ | 18 April 2006 | Staff

Posted on 04/19/2006 3:57:51 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

A new article in PLoS Biology (April 18, 2006) discusses the state of scientific literacy in the United States, with especial attention to the survey research of Jon D. Miller, who directs the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University Medical School.

To measure public acceptance of the concept of evolution, Miller has been asking adults if "human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals" since 1985. He and his colleagues purposefully avoid using the now politically charged word "evolution" in order to determine whether people accept the basics of evolutionary theory. Over the past 20 years, the proportion of Americans who reject this concept has declined (from 48% to 39%), as has the proportion who accept it (45% to 40%). Confusion, on the other hand, has increased considerably, with those expressing uncertainty increasing from 7% in 1985 to 21% in 2005.
In international surveys, the article reports, "[n]o other country has so many people who are absolutely committed to rejecting the concept of evolution," quoting Miller as saying, "We are truly out on a limb by ourselves."

The "partisan takeover" of the title refers to the embrace of antievolutionism by what the article describes as "the right-wing fundamentalist faction of the Republican Party," noting, "In the 1990s, the state Republican platforms in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Missouri, and Texas all included demands for teaching creation science." NCSE is currently aware of eight state Republican parties that have antievolutionism embedded in their official platforms or policies: those of Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas. Four of them -- those of Alaska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas -- call for teaching forms of creationism in addition to evolution; the remaining three call only for referring the decision whether to teach such "alternatives" to local school districts.

A sidebar to the article, entitled "Evolution under Attack," discusses the role of NCSE and its executive director Eugenie C. Scott in defending the teaching of evolution. Scott explained the current spate of antievolution activity as due in part to the rise of state science standards: "for the first time in many states, school districts are faced with the prospect of needing to teach evolution. ... If you don't want evolution to be taught, you need to attack the standards." Commenting on the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover [Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.], Scott told PLoS Biology, "Intelligent design may be dead as a legal strategy but that does not mean it is dead as a popular social movement," urging and educators to continue to resist to the onslaught of the antievolution movement. "It's got legs," she quipped. "It will evolve."


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: biology; creationuts; crevolist; evomania; religiousevos; science; scienceeducation; scientificliteracy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 751-800801-850851-900 ... 1,251-1,290 next last
To: MissAmericanPie

ID cannot be falsified. Therefore, it cannot be tested.


801 posted on 04/22/2006 6:36:59 PM PDT by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 769 | View Replies]

To: doc30; betty boop
There is no evidence for it and, if one argues complexity, then there must also be an explanation for what this creative source is and how it operates. ID is an interesting philosophical concept, but does not rise to the level of science. Only those who do not understand the nature of science do not comprehend this situation.

Without philosophy and its wisdom your "science" is nothing but an efficient means to maleficence.

P.S. evidence --- "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "

802 posted on 04/22/2006 6:57:25 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The linked article in PLoS Biology has an anti-Republican slant, especially if you look at the dumb cartoon in the middle of it. This is a symptom of the problem that arises when one party officially rejects the scientific method. Hopefully, the professionals at the national level have learned from the Dover fiasco, and will keep Darwin out of politics.

You can't keep Darwin out of politics when the government via the courts imposes it on citizens. Still retaining some rights to freedom of thought, those opposed to it will rebel against this tyranny. You reap what you sow.

Another theological point always evident when Darwinists get heavy handed is the doctrine of human depravity.

803 posted on 04/22/2006 6:57:56 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bookmark


804 posted on 04/22/2006 6:59:30 PM PDT by Frank Sheed (Tá brón orainn. Níl Spáinnis againn anseo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The problem, PH, is that darwinists have become secular priests who stubbornly and arrogantly believe they are the repositories of received and perfect wisdom about where we come from (the void via blind chance), why we're here (no reason--ultimately existence is pointless), and where we're going (early extinction and heat death). Read anything by Dennet, by Gould, or by Dawkins. They indoctrinate our children in this crap and then sic the state on their critics who object to it.

Physics doesn't have this problem. Mathematics doesn't have this problem. Chemistry doesn't have this problem. Biology apart from darwinist dogma doesn't have this problem.

Darwinian evolution has this problem. It has this problem because it makes faith claims it can't back up and stifles its honest critics because its zealots lack confidence n their "science" and would rather avoid or win the debate through intimidation or state coercion.

It's a pathetic and abominable scientific theory that has to rely on the state to secure and protect its privileged position.

805 posted on 04/22/2006 7:10:26 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
You can't keep Darwin out of politics when the government via the courts imposes it on citizens.

Read the Dover decision. Then you'll know who tried to impose what on whom: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.

806 posted on 04/22/2006 7:14:19 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
"(the void via blind chance)"

Nothing to do with evolution.

"why we're here (no reason--ultimately existence is pointless),"

Nothing to do with evolution.

" where we're going (early extinction and heat death)."

Nothing to do with evolution.

Have anything that is actually about evolutionary biology?

"Darwinian evolution ID/creationism has this problem. It has this problem because it makes faith claims it can't back up and stifles its honest critics because its zealots lack confidence n their "science" and would rather avoid or win the debate through intimidation or state coercion."

Fixed that for ya. :)

"It's(ID/creationism) a pathetic and abominable scientific theory theological/philosophical claim that has to rely on the state to secure and protect its privileged position insinuate itself into legitimate science classrooms.

Fixed again. :)

No charge for the editing; it's a special service from DarwinCentral, the conspiracy that cares.

807 posted on 04/22/2006 7:20:35 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Read the Dover decision. Then you'll know who tried to impose what on whom:

for readers who want to cut straight to the chase:

from pp. 137-138 of the Court's decision:

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

Judicial activism is when judges make up law that doesn't exist. Judge Jones followed precedent every step of the way in his jurisprudence; in point of fact he had no choice; to do otherwise would have been an act of the very "judicial activism" for which his detractors have such contempt. The only "activists" in this case were the nutballs on the school board who lied and connived to change the science curriculum to suit their personal religious beliefs and preferences, and the dorks in the anti-Evo PR organizations and law firms who egged them on.

The reality is if they don't want federal judges messy around in public school curriculum then they ought to mad at the school board members who sought out the activist law firm BEFORE they changed the science class policy (without ever seeking any professional scientific advice), which means they were already lining up legal representation BEFORE a lawsuit was ever filed!

In short, the law form was itching for a Federal case on ID, and the Dover School Board was loaded with exactly the sort of dupes they wanted to gen up a case for them.

The judge was right when he said the students and taxpayers of Dover were ill-served by this litigation, and the people to blame for it are the idiots on the Dover school board (who repeatedly lied under oath) and the law firm that conned them into this ill-advised adventure.

808 posted on 04/22/2006 7:26:29 PM PDT by longshadow (FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

placemarker


809 posted on 04/22/2006 7:31:57 PM PDT by js1138 (somewhere, some time ago, something happened, but whatever it was that happened wasn't evolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
The deranged school board in Dover was intentionally and falsely trying to pass off Pandas, a creationist piece of dung, as if it were a science book. As the brilliant, conservative judge said:
As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards [Edwards v. Aguillard], which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:
(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID;

(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and

(3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.

This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's [FTE = the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the publisher of Pandas] argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions.
Source: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.
810 posted on 04/22/2006 7:38:13 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Fret of fret, people don't like things crammed down their throats. One day Darwinists will evolve enough to figure that one out.


811 posted on 04/22/2006 7:39:50 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longshadow; PatrickHenry

The Creationists carefully picked a court fight.

The Creationist witnesses perjured themselves (although trying to excuse perjury by pleading drug addiction.)

The Creationists lost.


812 posted on 04/22/2006 7:51:58 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
How is it too broad?

Good question. If you were teaching the "Theory of Evolution", in the year 2006, how would you state the Theory based on today's knowledge?

813 posted on 04/22/2006 8:20:23 PM PDT by TaxRelief (Wal-Mart: Keeping my family on-budget since 1993.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Fret of fret, people don't like things crammed down their throats. One day Darwinists will evolve enough to figure that one out.

Hey, science is science. It goes where the data lead. Scientists hate it when their hypotheses or theories are overturned, but that's the way it is in science.

Yet you want science censored to fit your religious beliefs? "You can study this, but you can't study that because I don't like it!"

Is this really what you are telling us?

814 posted on 04/22/2006 8:24:49 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

What's insulting about the word "evomaniac"?

My kids are proud to be called "roller coaster maniacs" and get caught up in "dancemania". It's not unusual for the younger generation to refer to people who are passionate about something as "maniacs".


815 posted on 04/22/2006 8:28:28 PM PDT by TaxRelief (Wal-Mart: Keeping my family on-budget since 1993.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 800 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American; CarolinaGuitarman; ToryHeartland
It's absolutely fascinating watching you all pounce on the young lady over a small typo: Why not just stick to the substance of the discussion?
816 posted on 04/22/2006 8:37:04 PM PDT by TaxRelief (Wal-Mart: Keeping my family on-budget since 1993.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 771 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief; CarolinaGuitarman; ToryHeartland; MissAmericanPie
It's absolutely fascinating watching you all pounce on the young lady over a small typo

Normally I don't bother when the meaning is clear. But she repeated it in two successive posts.

I assume she meant 40 years. Which is kind of a silly point, since evolution was the accepted theory over 120 years ago.

Government funding is a post-Manhattan-Project phenomenon and has nothing whatsoever to do with the success of Darwin's theory.

817 posted on 04/22/2006 9:03:06 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief

Oh, please. Your explanation is positively Clintonian.

No one self-identifies as an evomaniac.


818 posted on 04/22/2006 9:11:30 PM PDT by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 815 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
No one self-identifies as an evomaniac.

Or "Darwinist" either.

No college I ever attended offered courses in "Darwinism."

That's simply a derogatory term used by anti-evolutionists. Must have run out of arguments or something.

819 posted on 04/22/2006 9:40:34 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 818 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; stands2reason

And lets not forget, the poster(I cannot remember who), that insists on using the word, 'EvoThink'...ah, such catchy words...


820 posted on 04/22/2006 9:42:11 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Thanks for the ping!


821 posted on 04/22/2006 10:12:54 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief; CarolinaGuitarman; ToryHeartland; MissAmericanPie
It's absolutely fascinating watching you all pounce on the young lady over a small typo: Why not just stick to the substance of the discussion?

Taxrelief, which of MAPs claims do you believe was a typo, and why? MAP hasn't disavowed any of them; so why are you trying to disavow a claim for her? Are your mind-reading skills unusually strong today?

822 posted on 04/23/2006 1:35:32 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Miraculous explanations are just spasmodic omphalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

I've always taken "evothink" as a compliment. Its practitioners perform rational assessment of the physical evidence and draw the conclusions that the evidence implies, without prejudice. Come to think of it, I can see why some in these debates would see the word as an insult. ;)


823 posted on 04/23/2006 1:38:16 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Miraculous explanations are just spasmodic omphalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 820 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief

"Good question."

Now please answer it, as I directed it to you.


824 posted on 04/23/2006 4:35:03 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 813 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief

Do you believe in evolution or creation?


825 posted on 04/23/2006 4:47:00 AM PDT by demoRat watcher (Keeper of the Anthropocentrism Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Can you not answer the question? Fascinating.

Again, I ask you: "If you were teaching the 'Theory of Evolution', in the year 2006, how would you state the Theory based on today's knowledge?"


826 posted on 04/23/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by TaxRelief (Wal-Mart: Keeping my family on-budget since 1993.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 824 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief
"Can you not answer the question? Fascinating."

What's fascinating is your obfuscation. I asked you how is evolution too broad, and you have answered... nothing. Trying to deflect that by asking me what evolution is only make you look less than capable.

"Again, I ask you: "If you were teaching the 'Theory of Evolution', in the year 2006, how would you state the Theory based on today's knowledge?"

You answer my question first. I asked first, remember. :)
827 posted on 04/23/2006 5:12:35 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: ToryHeartland
In the immortal words of Don McLean: bye bye!

'Fess up, you were just dying to use that.

828 posted on 04/23/2006 6:24:35 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 776 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; CarolinaGuitarman
Teaching cultural/philosophical issues like evolution is not education; it's indoctrination. ( editor-surveyor)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Editor-surveyor and CaroinaGuitarman,

There is NO way that any government school can satisfy both of your educational demands. No matter what the government school decides it will support the religious worldview of one of you and undermine the religious worldview of the other.

Evolution is merely one example of hundreds that prove the illegitimacy of government schools.

The solution is to begin the privatization of universal K-12 education. We can as a society provide for the education of all our children in private settings.

However....it does seem that the pro-evolutionists are the most vigorous supporters of government schools and the most vocal against vouchers, tax credits, and freedom of choice for students and parents. ( This is my anecdotal observation). I wonder why that is? Is it because they wish to impose their anointed will upon other parents' children?
829 posted on 04/23/2006 8:23:58 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Hey honey, go prove I'm wrong, then I will bother with you. When I was new I use to let you pack animals run me around providing evidence when you provide none. I like it because the people that read this see through it easily enough and my impact is better on the reader.

Afer all that is what we are all doing here, impacting the reader.


830 posted on 04/23/2006 8:32:02 AM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

831 posted on 04/23/2006 8:44:10 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 829 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
BTW, do you really have a beef WRT the teaching of "philosophical/cultural issues" in the secondary schools and institutions of higher learning, in principle??? If so, WHY???

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I have a problem with government K-12 schools.

The education of the young can NOT be politically, culturally, or religiously neutral. Education of youth IS the transfer of cultural traditions, the accumulated Knowles acquired by the society, the political structure of the culture, and the ethics and morals of the society.

Since time and resources are finite the government school must make choices as to what to cover in depth, what to merely mention, and what to completely ignore. These choices are NOT neutral, and will favor the worldview of some while undermining that of others. A child or adult's worldview WILL have profound political, cultural, and religious consequences.

Evolution is merely one of hundreds of curriculum and policy issues bitterly disputed among our citizens. Is it any wonder? Evolution contributes to one's worldview, and as previously argued, worldview has political, cultural, and religious consequences.

The solution is to begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education. We can provide excellent opportunities for all our nation's children in private settings.
832 posted on 04/23/2006 8:47:08 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
"Hey honey, go prove I'm wrong, then I will bother with you."

Why don't you instead provide evidence you are right? Like, say, even ONE citation that says that we share 97% genetic similarity with corn? Just ONE. Go for it.

"When I was new I use to let you pack animals run me around providing evidence when you provide none."

Sorry, you made the claim of a 3% difference. It's YOUR obligation to back that up, not mine. Put up or shut up. So far you have provided nothing.


"I like it because the people that read this see through it easily enough and my impact is better on the reader."

True. Lurkers will see that you made a silly claim (3% similarity with corn, genetically speaking) and have yet to provide even one citation to back it up. They will see you for what you are. It won't take them 40 decades either. :)

"Afer all that is what we are all doing here, impacting the reader."

Teeth get impacted. I'm trying to convince.
833 posted on 04/23/2006 8:49:02 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 830 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

"3% similarity with corn, genetically speaking"

Obviously I meant 3% difference. My bad.


834 posted on 04/23/2006 8:51:35 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 833 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
The religion of evolution takes on the cloak of hard science (its mechanisms no more extraordinary than random mutation and natural selection) and under the cloak of hard science it attempts to make the science classroom its sacrosanct temple where no other concepts will be broached

^^^^^^^^^^

It does seem that the evolutionists are the most vigorous defenders of compulsory government owned, government run schools. ( This is my anecdotal observation).

I am an evolutionist, but I do NOT advocate forcing this on resistant children and their families. I do NOT advocate threatening them with police action if they refuse to subject their children to the subject of evolution itself or to force them to associate with children who have been exposed to it. I do NOT advocate threatening my fellow citizens with the sale of their home or business if they refuse to fund government schools that promote it.

I do NOT favor having the government run price-fixed monopoly schools that create a very hostile environment for the creation of private schools. Then when private schools are scarce and both parents are working to support burdensome taxes, I do NOT advocate threatening them with police action if they refuse to use the only government school alternative artificially created by the government.
835 posted on 04/23/2006 8:52:52 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 799 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Read the Dover decision. Then you'll know who tried to impose what on whom: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Patrick Henry,

If universal education were privatized, then you could send your children to private schools that supported your educational philosophy, and other parents could send their children to private schools that upheld their family traditions.

It is my anecdotal observation that it is the pro-evolutionist who are the staunches supporters of price-fixed monopoly government schools.

By the way,,,,since I am an evolutionists, in a system of private schools, it is likely my kids would have been sitting next to yours.
836 posted on 04/23/2006 8:58:05 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
'Fess up, you were just dying to use that.

It's a fair cop, Guv'nor. You've got me bang to rights!

I had the itch from the moment I arrived at the quayside in my Chevrolet automobile, only to find the watercourse was missing...

837 posted on 04/23/2006 9:04:38 AM PDT by ToryHeartland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Judicial activism is when judges make up law that doesn't exist. Judge Jones followed precedent every step of the way in his jurisprudence; in point of fact he had no choice;

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Longshaddow,

I completely agree with you as far as the Dover case is concerned. However,,,,,That the judge was legally correct in this case, does NOT resolve the tension among the various competing groups.

The essential problem is that government schools are illegitimate precisely because they are a violation of freedom of conscience.

The point is that evolution is merely one of HUNDREDS of issues that can not be fairly and evenhandedly presented by the government schools. No matter what decisions the government school makes, it will establish and uphold the worldview of some while undermining that of others.
838 posted on 04/23/2006 9:05:06 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Fret of fret, people don't like things crammed down their throats. One day Darwinists will evolve enough to figure that one out.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And,,,,they don't like paying for it either.

It does seem that evolutionists are the most fervent worshipers of price-fixed, monopoly government schools and the least likely to support freedom of choice in the form of vouchers or tax credits. I wonder why that is?

By the way,,,I am an evolutionist but believe in freedom of conscience and think government schools are illegitimate violators of that freedom.
839 posted on 04/23/2006 9:08:42 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Yet you want science censored to fit your religious beliefs? "You can study this, but you can't study that because I don't like it!"

Is this really what you are telling us?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why is it so hard for evolutionists to hear?

People do NOT want evolution shoved down their children's throats!

Government schools are illegitimate because they are violators of our human right to freedom of conscience!

Why is it that evolutionists are the staunchest supporters of government schools and the least likely to advocate vouchers or tax credits? ( an anecdotal observation on my part).

By the way,,,I am an evolutionists but advocate educational freedom of choice for parents and children.
840 posted on 04/23/2006 9:13:58 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief; MissAmericanPie
It's absolutely fascinating watching you all pounce on the young lady over a small typo

Check my post again: I said nothing about a typo. In any event, I post so many typos of my own I would never presume to cast the first stone.

My post was about the tugging sensation I felt on my leg. Maybe it's just me, but somehow when you get to uncited and absurdist claims about a 3% genetic difference between homo sapiens and an ear of corn, and go on to speak of 400 years of US government funding, it is well nigh impossible to avoid feeling we are deep into Monty Python territory.

Why not just stick to the substance of the discussion?

Indeed I have been. The substance of this thread is a discussion about 'scientific illiteracy.' MissAmericanPie is either unwittingly demonstrating precisely what the article is decrying to an extraordinary degree, or else having a lark. I suspect the latter on the grounds that her posts are too absurd to be credible.

841 posted on 04/23/2006 9:17:06 AM PDT by ToryHeartland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
"By the way,,,I am an evolutionists..."

Just like all those people who call in to conservative talk radio shows saying that they are conservative and voted for Bush, but.... lol
842 posted on 04/23/2006 9:17:23 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 840 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

One Trick Pony,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Personal insults will not make the arguments I presented go away.


843 posted on 04/23/2006 9:17:59 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 831 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Just like all those people who call in to conservative talk radio shows saying that they are conservative and voted for Bush, but.... lol

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Personal attacks will not make the ideas I presented go away.
844 posted on 04/23/2006 9:18:43 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 842 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
It is my anecdotal observation that it is the pro-evolutionist who are the staunches supporters of price-fixed monopoly government schools.

Be prepared to have your observation punctured by an exception. I'm not a supporter of government-run education. But I am a supporter of Constitutional government. Most states -- maybe all of them, I don't know -- require state-run schools. It will require maybe 50 states to amend their constitutions to change things. I'd be a supporter of that.

Further, most states have separation of church and state in their state constitutions. In the two recent cases, the Georgia textbook sticker case and the Dover lunatic school board case, the cases were brought in federal courts, but in each case the judge found that the local actions violated the state constitution -- as well as the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.
Selman v. Cobb County School District. The Georgia textbook sticker case.

845 posted on 04/23/2006 9:20:19 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 836 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
Yet you want science censored to fit your religious beliefs? "You can study this, but you can't study that because I don't like it!"

Is this really what you are telling us?

Why is it so hard for evolutionists to hear?

People do NOT want evolution shoved down their children's throats!

Your response just confirms my point, above:

Yet you want science censored to fit your religious beliefs? "You can study this, but you can't study that because I don't like it!"

ps. I would love to see vouchers. You're wrong on that point also.

846 posted on 04/23/2006 9:20:40 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 840 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Afer all that is what we are all doing here, impacting the reader.

We agree about that, at least....

847 posted on 04/23/2006 9:22:37 AM PDT by ToryHeartland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 830 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

"Personal attacks will not make the ideas I presented go away."

Nor will your saying you accept evolution make you an evolutionist. You no more accept evolution than the Pope is Muslim. Nice seminar-caller tactics though.

You're a one trick pony.


848 posted on 04/23/2006 9:26:06 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 844 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Your response just confirms my point, above:


Yet you want science censored to fit your religious beliefs? "You can study this, but you can't study that because I don't like it!"
ps. I would love to see vouchers. You're wrong on that point also.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Coyoteman,

You know nothing about my religious beliefs.

Neither the IDers or the evolutionists should have the right to force anything on other people's children.

Personally, when homeschooling my children, I supported evolution. They were children, however, and did not have the background to effectively study or investigate evolution in any depth. On the college they attended liberal colleges and in their science courses evolution was well covered.

I am pleased to see that you support vouchers and tax credits.
849 posted on 04/23/2006 9:32:07 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 846 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Most states -- maybe all of them, I don't know -- require state-run schools.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Then there is internal inconsistency within their state constitutions. The human right to freedom of conscience supercedes the demand for government owned and government run price-fixed monopoly schools.

The following is an excellent essay explaining why government owned and run price-fixed monopoly schools are unconstitutional on the state and federal levels:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter9.htm
850 posted on 04/23/2006 9:35:43 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 751-800801-850851-900 ... 1,251-1,290 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson