Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stemming the Tide - Letís pay science and math teachers more.
City Journal ^ | 16 January 2009 | Marcus A. Winters

Posted on 01/20/2009 7:55:40 PM PST by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last
To: metmom

“It’s not like science in public schools is anything worth mentioning as it is”

In yours maybe.


101 posted on 01/21/2009 4:29:20 PM PST by swmobuffalo ("We didn't seek the approval of Code Pink and MoveOn.org before deciding what to do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

” I would like to see science teachers teach even more science and less nonsense.

And the anti-science religious fundamentalism that is being pushed in some areas has no role in science education.”

I just said science teachers do just that teach science.

And as for the religious fundamentalism, that’s just a tad bit of a strawman. There’s no real danger of religion replacing science. In many cases, religion backs up the science.

What the idiot Muslims do is there problem.


102 posted on 01/21/2009 4:32:20 PM PST by swmobuffalo ("We didn't seek the approval of Code Pink and MoveOn.org before deciding what to do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: swmobuffalo
I just said science teachers do just that teach science.

I agree with you on this. The bump science got in the late 1950s and early 1960s was somewhat lost by the dope smoke of the late 1960s. And then the fundamentalists got a jumpstart and haven't helped the situation a bit.

And as for the religious fundamentalism, that’s just a tad bit of a strawman. There’s no real danger of religion replacing science. In many cases, religion backs up the science.

No strawman--fundamentalist religion is looking to replace science, or when they can't, to censor science. Look at the Texas squabbles; look at Dover and a host of other issues that were taken to the courts to prevent fundamentalism from being forced on students.

And you don't have to go any further than these threads to see that exact process in action. If a certain group of posters here had their way, the age of the earth would be fixed at about 6,000 years and the theory of evolution would be banned from the schools. As a fallback position they generously admit that they would like both science and fundamentalist religion taught.

No, they hate science, or at least those results that contradict their religious beliefs. They are working and hoping to censor science in the short term and to "replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" in the long term -- at which point it will no longer be real science.

103 posted on 01/21/2009 4:58:06 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; swmobuffalo
Look at the Texas squabbles; look at Dover and a host of other issues that were taken to the courts to prevent fundamentalism from being forced on students.

Look at history. What you claim is *religious fundamentalism* was just what most people believed several decades ago and further back. There was no theocracy. Reintroducing creation back into the schools like it was taught for centuries is no more going to harm science than it did then.

Creation was removed from public schools decades ago. Show us how science education benefited from it. Show us how it improved our ranking in science education in the world to have only evolution taught in public schools.

That should be easy to do because all you have to do is go back in our own history.

104 posted on 01/21/2009 5:18:53 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Creation was removed from public schools decades ago. Show us how science education benefited from it. Show us how it improved our ranking in science education in the world to have only evolution taught in public schools.

You're getting to be a one-trick pony. You really should realize that its not an either-or situation. There are a lot of other factors in the equation.

To claim, as you do, that the drop in educational excellence over the past 50 or more years is a direct result of the removal of fundamentalist religion from science classes is a delusion of the highest order.

To claim that ignores the vast changes of the 1960s. It also dishonestly cojoins those changes with having "only evolution taught in public schools." Sorry, that's a fundamentalist's delusion.

The surge in science education of the late 1950s and early 1960s (largely brought about by the space program) was severely impacted by the liberal surge of the late 1960s.

Neither of these had any relationship to whether fundamentalist religion was taught in the schools or not.

And no amount of fundamentalism--not even an absolute theocracy--will bring back your incorrectly remembered "golden years." Sorry, Humpty has taken the big fall and he's not coming back. (Remember "The Enlightenment?")

You write, "Reintroducing creation back into the schools like it was taught for centuries is no more going to harm science than it did then."

You are advocating teaching religion as science; your religion in place of science. Creationism is religion--everyone agrees to that. What you want is that your religion be taught as fact, as verifiable evidence, and as science--but I suspect you don't want your claims to be subjected to the scientific method, to testing of the "weaknesses," if you will. To "critical thinking." You are glad to have "weaknesses" and "critical thinking" applied to the theory of evolution, but that's really the last thing you want for your own beliefs.

And you claim not to be anti-science... Sorry, you (and a couple of others here) are the poster children for anti-science fundamentalists.

105 posted on 01/21/2009 5:55:06 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Tell you what, when you can provide sources that are mainstream or at least neutral in viewpoint get back to me.

I’m well aware of your “bias” towards anything that smacks of religion, especially when it comes to the subject of evolution.

And yes your argument is a strawman. You throw it out there everytime this subject comes up, just like you’re really afraid of the truth.


106 posted on 01/21/2009 7:49:13 PM PST by swmobuffalo ("We didn't seek the approval of Code Pink and MoveOn.org before deciding what to do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“Forced government control of education and mandatory draft because it’s good for you, whether you know it or not, and whether you like it or not?”

I never thought of coyoteman as ‘conservative’ but his post was quite revealing. The evolutionists really do want total control over education.


107 posted on 01/21/2009 10:12:17 PM PST by ari-freedom (Hail to the Dork!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

You should see where most of them stand on mandatory vaccines and their opinion of people who oppose the mandatory part.


108 posted on 01/22/2009 5:43:56 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
“Forced government control of education and mandatory draft because it’s good for you, whether you know it or not, and whether you like it or not?”

Idiots! Can't even tell the difference between analyzing a situation and advocating it? My comment on the draft analyzed the effects of its elimination. That's a far cry from advocating for its return.

No wonder you guys dislike science and anything requiring analytical reasoning; you're so poor at it.

I never thought of coyoteman as ‘conservative’ but his post was quite revealing. The evolutionists really do want total control over education.

Not conservative because I'm not a theocon zealot? I can live with that. But I supported Reagan during his first campaign and was president of a Young Republican chapter -- both back in the 1960s.

And my goal as far as eduction is concerned is to keep you and your ilk from peddling your fundamentalist anti-science beliefs in place of science, or instead of science as I'm sure many of you would prefer.

109 posted on 01/22/2009 7:38:00 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; metmom

“And my goal as far as eduction is concerned is to keep you and your ilk from peddling your fundamentalist anti-science beliefs in place of science, or instead of science as I’m sure many of you would prefer.”

No, your goal should be to simply post whatever you feel like on freerepublic because you will certainly not be able to control the education of OUR kids.

As for the draft, I sure didn’t see any ‘analysis.’ I guess the standard for analysis has been so butchered by evolutionists that you can come up with any connection you want and still call it ‘analysis.’


110 posted on 01/22/2009 8:38:18 AM PST by ari-freedom (Hail to the Dork!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; ari-freedom

If you don’t like what your kids are learning in publicly funded schools paid for by those parents who consistently vote to have creation and ID taught along with evolution, start your own God-free, evolution only private atheist school or homeschool. You’re free to do that any time you wish.

Advertise for it and watch the stampede as people flock to your school.

Educate them on your own dime and stop trying to force your views on us because you think that you can justify dictating your views to others, whether they like it or not.


111 posted on 01/22/2009 8:53:11 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“those parents who consistently vote to have creation and ID taught along with evolution”

or at least simply be allowed to question evolutionary claims in school.


112 posted on 01/22/2009 9:01:49 AM PST by ari-freedom (Hail to the Dork!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
or at least simply be allowed to question evolutionary claims in school.

You want to question evolutionary claims try the peer reviewed journals. That's where science is conducted.

In schools students are expected to learn something about science before they start saying its all wrong.

(That's the difference between real science and creation "science.")

113 posted on 01/22/2009 9:06:49 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

The difference is that creation science makes predictions that can be confirmed while evolutionists simply make up lots of fudge factors to get the data to appear to fit to their contrived conjectures after the fact.


114 posted on 01/22/2009 9:23:51 AM PST by ari-freedom (Hail to the Dork!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; ari-freedom
In schools students are expected to learn something about science before they start saying its all wrong.

Kind of hard to do when truth is a wopd best avoided in science.

If you don't know what's true, you can't tell other people that they are wrong.

115 posted on 01/22/2009 9:32:07 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: metmom

wopd=word


116 posted on 01/22/2009 9:32:55 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom; tpanther
or at least simply be allowed to question evolutionary claims in school.

How dare they!

There is simply no reason for the evo/atheists to demand that creation be removed from the public schools.

Poll after poll indicates that the majority of parents want it addressed along with evolution. For those who don't want their kids to hear it, they have several options besides using litigation to force their worldview on others.

Those options are: homeschool, start their own private God free evo only schools, or opt out of that part of the class on the day that creation is addressed.

There is simply no justification for using the heavy hand of the government to oppress something that they don't think should be taught.

I wonder if their faith in their theory is so weak that they're afraid that if their kids hear about creation in school that they might believe it.

117 posted on 01/22/2009 9:38:11 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: metmom
In schools students are expected to learn something about science before they start saying its all wrong.

Kind of hard to do when truth is a wopd best avoided in science.

If you don't know what's true, you can't tell other people that they are wrong.

You are showing that you are either incapable of learning, or committed to deliberate distortion and misrepresentation. I suspect the latter. That's what creation "science" is all about anyway.

For the lurkers not following the discussion, I frequently post a definition from a CalTech physics website:

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

This is deliberately and consistently misrepresented--until it amounts to a lie--to claim that science is untrue and that scientists don't know what is true (as in the above post) so that they can't say something is wrong.

Science is not about "truth," "Truth," "TRUTH," or "TRVTH" -- science is about increasingly accurate descriptions and explanations for natural phenomena. And science is exceedingly good at this.

To turn this around, as posters here frequently do, to imply that science is untrue etc. is both sophistry and outright lying. It also shows the abject dishonesty of their arguments that they can't argue the merits of a position but automatically seek to misrepresent and to distort. It makes one suspicious of pretty much everything they post.

Lets try again:

In schools students are expected to learn something about science before they start saying its all wrong.

118 posted on 01/22/2009 9:50:29 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; ari-freedom; tpanther

The question remains...

If you don’t like the idea of public schools teaching your children creation and ID as polls consistently show parents want, why don’t you homeschool them, or send them to a private school? Or even the more reasonable option of simply having them opt out of the class that day?

Why the push to ban what you don’t like from all public schools for all kids and parents?

Is you faith in the ToE so weak that you’re even afraid that your kids might hear something you don’t believe in? Is you faith in the ToE so weak that you can’t even allow any competing viewpoint to be presented?


119 posted on 01/22/2009 12:54:28 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; metmom

You’re getting to be a one-trick pony. You really should realize that its not an either-or situation. There are a lot of other factors in the equation.


Project much? How many times have we seen YOU blame the failings of science on creationists...now that’ you’re confronted with truth, it’s suddenly bcause of all these “variables”????

Riiiiiiiiight!!!!!

Your problems remain:

1. science thrived just fine pre-godless liberal NEA, as did education in general, without all the theocracy, inquistion, and burnings at the stake strawmen you regurgitate ad infinatum...

2. Home-schooled and private schooled kids perform better academically, than their counterparts who are taught by people with endless insecure God-hang-ups.

3. You can’t blame creationists because your cult saw to it to stomp God out of education!

There’s just no wiggling loose from the facts CM.


120 posted on 01/22/2009 2:16:09 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

And then the fundamentalists got a jumpstart and haven’t helped the situation a bit.


Uhhhh, show us the creationist/fundamentalist curriculum in public schools that did so much harm to science since the 60’s, confucius.


121 posted on 01/22/2009 2:17:45 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
And the fundamentalists keep pushing for science to be taught their way.

Just like the enviro-fundamentalists keep pushing for science to be taught THEIR way? Right now, the enviros are winning, because the science curricula in almost every public school in the nation has adopted the AGW theory, and are teaching it to the kids. Algore and his minions have spent the money to hold seminars all over this country for teachers to learn about 'Climate Change' and pass that along to the skulls full of mush. Almost every high school has a 'Green' club, in which the students learn how to 'reduce their carbon footprint' and cajole their parents and everyone else in the world how to reduce theirs also.

The AGW 'Climate Change' crowd is every bit as 'religious' as the Creationists, they just think their religion is more important, because according to them, they CAN save the world, if everyone will just do as they say.

122 posted on 01/22/2009 2:29:14 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: metmom
...why don’t you homeschool them, or send them to a private school?

Because they get the best of both worlds, they control the money AND we pay for their failures through school tax, WHILE they blame us for their failures.

Liberals do that. Be it govt, education, you name it that's what liberals do.

123 posted on 01/22/2009 2:30:04 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; tpanther
You are advocating teaching religion as science; your religion in place of science.

You need to quit lying about me. I never advocated that.

Creationism is religion--everyone agrees to that.

No they don't. Creationism is not a religion; Christianity is.

What you want is that your religion be taught as fact, as verifiable evidence, and as science--

You need to quit lying about me.

but I suspect you don't want your claims to be subjected to the scientific method, to testing of the "weaknesses," if you will. To "critical thinking." You are glad to have "weaknesses" and "critical thinking" applied to the theory of evolution, but that's really the last thing you want for your own beliefs.

That's not true either. Christianity can stand up to the closest of scrutiny.

Sorry, you (and a couple of others here) are the poster children for anti-science fundamentalists.

I am not anti-science.

You really need to stop lying about me.

I don't know where you get this stuff but making stuff up about people and accusing them of it as if it were fact, is more than intellectually dishonest. It's just plain dishonest.

124 posted on 01/22/2009 2:31:27 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; metmom

LOL...the miserably failed “peer review” fallacy once again....

evolution is never EVER seriously challenged without the challenge being attacked as religion.

It’s no longer a theory because it’s been hijacked by cultists like you.


125 posted on 01/22/2009 2:33:19 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

Suing the opposition into silence is a great way to have control over curriculum without the bother of having to pay for the kind of education you want for your kids yourself.

Make everyone else do it if they don’t like what you force on them.

Those who don’t like the kind of education the majority of the parents favor have other options open to them, the easiest of which is to simply have their children opt out of the class for the day.

I have yet to see any evo willing to compromise in that manner as a solution to the problem rather than support federal government control of education.


126 posted on 01/22/2009 2:35:48 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
LOL...the miserably failed “peer review” fallacy once again....

And evos keep saying that science is not done by consensus.

127 posted on 01/22/2009 2:37:23 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I have yet to see any evo willing to compromise in that manner as a solution to the problem rather than support federal government control of education.

Neither have I but this is hardly surprising since liberals never ever seek compromise. Liberalism is about tearing own all things Christian.It's not just science class, it's education in general, law, politics, jopurnalism, EVERYTHING public...liberals think they are God.

128 posted on 01/22/2009 2:42:41 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: RochesterFan

Well said!!


129 posted on 01/22/2009 2:43:52 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“You need to quit lying about me. I never advocated that.”

Rush Limbaugh points this out about liberals all the time, they can’t argue based on the merits or issues, so they project, present strawmen, and so on, and evo-cultists are among the worst liberals.


130 posted on 01/22/2009 3:13:52 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And evos keep saying that science is not done by consensus.

yup, along with "evolution doesn't pretend to address origins"...which begs the question, why do they get bent into pretzels when ID attempts to address origins?

131 posted on 01/22/2009 3:23:52 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

I’ve wondered that for some time. If evolution doesn’t address origins, why do they get so bent out of shape when someone proposes something that does?

And if science doesn’t even have any good theories about origins, how can they tell us that we’re wrong? Based on what?


132 posted on 01/22/2009 4:01:55 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I’ve wondered that for some time. If evolution doesn’t address origins, why do they get so bent out of shape when someone proposes something that does?

Scientists can handle more than one theory at a time. Each theory addresses a specific set of facts. The facts dealt with by the theory of evolution and the different hypotheses concerning origins are different. What you are bringing to the discussion is neither scientific nor evidentiary.

And if science doesn’t even have any good theories about origins, how can they tell us that we’re wrong? Based on what?

You are advocating a particular narrow religious belief, not science. You are supporting your contention with scripture and divine revelation, not scientific evidence. To date you have presented no scientific evidence to support your contentions.

Science has approached the problem using the scientific method and has made some progress. That progress has not reached the level of a theory yet, but it is at least attempting to address the question with evidence, rather than divine revelation and belief.

And once again you are showing that you are anti-science. I don't know how you can claim to support science when you avail yourself of every opportunity to dispute both scientific methods and findings in favor of divine revelation.

133 posted on 01/22/2009 6:42:16 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
You are advocating a particular narrow religious belief, not science.

Not so narrow. The Old Testament is Scripture for an awful lot of people in this world.

I don't know how you can claim to support science when you avail yourself of every opportunity to dispute both scientific methods and findings in favor of divine revelation.

Scientific findings confirm the account in Genesis that the universe had a beginning which scientists in the early 1900's tried so hard to deny.

Science confirmed that the earth was formless and void at one time, just like Scripture says.

Science claims that many animals came from common ancestors, which is not in conflict with God creating kinds and animals descending from them.

There are many areas where the findings of science verify Scripture, whether atheists and evos like to admit it or not.

Evos and atheists reject divine inspiration because they think that science is true. So why condemn someone who rejects some of the findings of science because they believe divine revelation is true? Why condemn someone for doing something you do yourself; that is accept what you believe as true and reject what you believe is false?

And once again you are showing that you are anti-science.

You really do need to stop lying about me.

134 posted on 01/22/2009 7:19:20 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And once again you are showing that you are anti-science.

You really do need to stop lying about me.

You have shown by your post that you accept revelation over science when the two conflict. That is anti-science, and I have told no lie.

You can believe what you want, but where we disagree is when you consider your beliefs to be science in spite of being contradicted by the methods and findings of science. If you tell me that your beliefs are religion, rather than science, we have no disagreement! It is when you try to distort what science does, and what it has found, that I disagree.

135 posted on 01/22/2009 7:30:32 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Someone really wants to win their banned from FR wreath from you anti-science luddites before he gets burned at the stake/sarc>

For someone who claims to be a champion of science we see little or no science but a lot of claims that cant be proven as true.


136 posted on 01/22/2009 8:28:34 PM PST by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; metmom; tpanther; ari-freedom
Sure now, here you are again slumming in one of those humble ‘Net chat rooms wasting your time gabbin’ with ordinary folk when you probably ought to be preparing an important lecture for a seminar, or writing an article for a technical journal.

But, since you’re here, could you be telling us what science text books it is that have been prepared for the day when the Creationists force the state and local education boards to approve religiously oriented science classes in the public schools? Those text books have to be prepared before anything else can happen, you know. And have the books been reviewed and accepted by the various regional accreditation associations? Then there’s the curriculum outline and the course of study workbooks and the other teachers’ aids. Have those also been prepared and submitted for acceptance to the state ed departments and the accreditation associations?

It doesn’t end there. Students have to be trained and certified by colleges to become the teachers of this new kind of exciting creation science of which you speak. Is that happening? And, what schools would it be that are preparing the teachers who will be conducting these classes? Can you name any? Almost assuredly, these schools would have to be bible-thumper colleges. State colleges and universities wouldn’t be conducting any these classes. Would they?

So, are you able to relate to us any of those things? Or are you just blowing smoke? To this point all you’ve been doing is throwing out propaganda talking points that would do no credit to anyone better than a Liberal. The rhetoric you’ve been inflicting on the forum is approximately equal to what one would have heard at IWW district convention in the Thirties.

137 posted on 01/22/2009 8:37:36 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
Sure now, here you are again slumming in one of those humble ‘Net chat rooms wasting your time gabbin’ with ordinary folk when you probably ought to be preparing an important lecture for a seminar, or writing an article for a technical journal.

I have been working on a journal article, thanks. It should be submitted for that peer review process creationists hate so much within a week. And I peer reviewed an article by another researcher this week as well. And I have three major lectures in March for which I am preparing.

But thanks for asking.

But, since you’re here, could you be telling us what science text books it is that have been prepared for the day when the Creationists force the state and local education boards to approve religiously oriented science classes in the public schools? Those text books have to be prepared before anything else can happen, you know. And have the books been reviewed and accepted by the various regional accreditation associations?

A text book? Sure, that's easy -- Of Pandas and People. But I don't think I would consider it as a science text book. And of course, there was this problem with a speed bump in Dover. Perhaps the problem is its evolution: Creation Biology (1983), Biology and Creation (1986), Biology and Origins (1987), and finally Of Pandas and People (1987) -- after the U.S. Supreme Court issued the Edwards decision. Details

138 posted on 01/22/2009 9:07:04 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
No, it isn't. I'm not opposed to research or the search for knowledge or the practical use of science in the form of technology. I do not reject the scientific method as a means to study the physical world. I do not reject teaching science and the scientific method in school.

What I do reject is the abuse and misuse of science as a tool to promote leftist and agenda and establish political policy. I reject the misuse of it to justify government control of education. I reject the misuse of science as a weapon with which to bash and discredit religious beliefs and to make the Bible out to be a lie.

My decision to not accept the interpretation of the forensic and circumstantial evidence found in the fossil record that are used to support the ToE does not mean that I am anti-science. All it means is that I do not accept the interpretation of the fossil record because I think that their interpretation is wrong and that there are other better ones.

By your own definitions, the best scientists can do is say that the evidence supports their theory. That's not good enough. That's not a better reason to accept the ToE rather than to accept Scripture. On the contrary, believing the God who doesn't lie makes much more sense than believing the uncertain, indeterminate conclusions of men.

Calling me anti-science is a lie, plain and simple. It is not true and will never be no matter how often you repeat it and how much you wish it were so.

139 posted on 01/22/2009 9:16:56 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
I'd still like to know why more the more reasonable options of opting out of the section on creation wouldn't wrok for evos? Why the need to ban it entirely from all schools against the wishes of the taxpaying parents whose children are being educated in those same schools?

Why don't THEY private school or homeschool at their own expense instead? The same option that they throw back in the face of anyone who objects to having their lives controlled by the liberal, big government cabal?

140 posted on 01/22/2009 9:21:14 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: metmom
By your own definitions, the best scientists can do is say that the evidence supports their theory. That's not good enough. That's not a better reason to accept the ToE rather than to accept Scripture. On the contrary, believing the God who doesn't lie makes much more sense than believing the uncertain, indeterminate conclusions of men.

Calling me anti-science is a lie, plain and simple. It is not true and will never be no matter how often you repeat it and how much you wish it were so.

Your first paragraph belies your second. You make my case for me.

141 posted on 01/22/2009 9:48:47 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
A text book? Sure, that's easy

I’m not going to advert to one of your favorite putdowns and suggest that you need to read for comprehension. Instead, I’ll simply observe that my question went to a great deal more substance than simply the name of a textbook. Your answer responds to none of the specs detailed in my query and ducks the issue entirely. The answer was unpalatable, so in the typical fashion of politics you rattled the keys on your board, but produced only noise. You and Senator Schumer could change places without a noticeable drop off in the quantity of bovine excrement on either side.

that peer review process creationists hate so much . . .

Who is it that objects to ‘peer review’? I’ve read objections to the abusive uses that ‘peer review’ has been put to, those abuses perhaps being rightly understood or wrongly understood (surely there are examples of both), but that’s another issue. And oh, how you do love to scramble your issues, thereby, we observe, utilizing another common political tactic.

Everyone in this forum recognizes the value of the peer review process. Everyone also understands that Liberals will abuse any process, subverting it to their own purposes (all the while blaming everything on their intended victims). They often claim as their motive that they are “doing it for the children.” In the same fashion, you claim that you are “doing it for science.” Do you not understand that no one is fooled by your ‘St. Joan at the stake’ schtick? We all recognize the Liberal bada-bing you practice. We see it every day, in a hundred ways. We all know who it is that has a strangle hold on academia and, growingly, on every aspect of our lives. It is not Christians and it is not Conservatives.

When you report to your masters, what is it you hope to get from them? A share in the power, or merely to be left alone to do your work? You had better hope it is the former, because the latter will never happen. It turns out to be the case, indeed, that Ayn Rand accurately prophesized the ultimate plight of America’s science community in her philosophical work Atlas Shrugged. So tell us, Dr. Stadler, how does it feel to be the lackey of Marxist/Socialist zealots?

142 posted on 01/23/2009 1:37:16 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

That’s not a bad idea:
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/15/opinion/oe-feldmann15


143 posted on 01/23/2009 1:42:29 PM PST by drew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"I'd still like to know why"

Purely a rhetorical question, mom. Yes? I won't insult you by acting as though you don't know the answers to your question. Sadly, the very ones who most desperately need to ask themselves the questions and to seek the answers are too bedazzled to think at all.

144 posted on 01/23/2009 3:01:28 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It has nothing to do with pay. It has everything to do with the curriculum pushed down from state bureaucrats, and local teachers unions on schools.


145 posted on 01/23/2009 3:04:27 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; metmom

Everyone in this forum recognizes the value of the peer review process. Everyone also understands that Liberals will abuse any process, subverting it to their own purposes (all the while blaming everything on their intended victims). They often claim as their motive that they are “doing it for the children.” In the same fashion, you claim that you are “doing it for science.” Do you not understand that no one is fooled by your ‘St. Joan at the stake’ schtick? We all recognize the Liberal bada-bing you practice. We see it every day, in a hundred ways. We all know who it is that has a strangle hold on academia and, growingly, on every aspect of our lives. It is not Christians and it is not Conservatives.

When you report to your masters, what is it you hope to get from them? A share in the power, or merely to be left alone to do your work? You had better hope it is the former, because the latter will never happen. It turns out to be the case, indeed, that Ayn Rand accurately prophesized the ultimate plight of America’s science community in her philosophical work Atlas Shrugged. So tell us, Dr. Stadler, how does it feel to be the lackey of Marxist/Socialist zealots?


MOST EXCELLENT observations of the empirical evidence!


146 posted on 01/23/2009 3:16:47 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Everyone in this forum recognizes the value of the peer review process.

The peer review process is relatively new in the field of science. More often than is good for the pursuit of truth, it functions as a means by which orthodoxy in a field is imposed and maintained and as an appeal to authority used by those desirous of maintaining current dogma to say "Hey, if it didn't pass our peer review, it really can't be anything of substance".
147 posted on 01/23/2009 3:39:22 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Yes, rhetorical. But I think the questions need to be given some consideration so that the agenda of those who would ban instead of co-operate can be exposed.


148 posted on 01/23/2009 5:03:47 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; tpanther; YHAOS
More often than is good for the pursuit of truth, it functions as a means by which orthodoxy in a field is imposed and maintained and as an appeal to authority used by those desirous of maintaining current dogma to say "Hey, if it didn't pass our peer review, it really can't be anything of substance".

Or more realistically, if it doesn't pass peer review, it isn't science.

149 posted on 01/23/2009 5:08:13 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

Purveyors of Unknowledge
150 posted on 01/23/2009 5:13:08 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-156 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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