I suppose it's destiny...

[Fraggle145]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/intelligent-design-missouri-evolution

What a crock...


Late last month, Rick Brattin, a Republican state representative in Missouri, introduced a bill that would require that intelligent design and "destiny" get the same educational treatment and textbook space in Missouri schools as the theory of evolution. Brattin insists that his bill has nothing to do with religion—it's all in the name of science.

"I'm a science enthusiast...I'm a huge science buff," Brattin tells The Riverfront Times. "This [bill] is about testable data in today's world." But Eric Meikle, education project director at the National Center for Science Education, disagrees. "This bill is very idiosyncratic and strange," he tells Mother Jones. "And there is simply not scientific evidence for intelligence design."

HB 291, the "Missouri Standard Science Act," redefines a few things you thought you already knew about science. For example, a "hypothesis" is redefined as something that reflects a "minority of scientific opinion and is "philosophically unpopular." A scientific theory is "an inferred explanation...whose components are data, logic and faith-based philosophy." And "destiny" is not something that $5 fortune tellers believe in; Instead, it's "the events and processes that define the future of the universe, galaxies, stars, our solar system, earth, plant life, animal life, and the human race."

The bill requires that Missouri elementary and secondary schools—and even introductory science classes in public universities—give equal textbook space to both evolution and intelligent design (any other "theories of origin" are allowed to be taught as well, so pick your favorite creation myth—I'm partial to the Russian raven spirit.) "I can't imagine any mainstream textbook publisher would comply with this," Meikle says. "The material doesn't exist."

The bill also establishes a nine-person committee (who must work for free) responsible for developing ad-hoc textbook material until appropriate textbook material is found.

Another bill introduced in the Missouri House, HB 179, has more in common with anti-evolution bills that have been proposed this year in states like Montana and Colorado. It asks teachers to "create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions"—but doesn't explicitly mention intelligent design. This is hardly the first time the Missouri House has tried to get evolution theory out of the classroom. Brattin and other cosponsors tried to get similar legislation passed last year, but the bill died in committee. In 2003, another bill with near-identical language to to HB 291 was sponsored by Rep. Robert Wayne Cooper (R-Mo.), but it also said that teachers who didn't comply would be fired. It was so controversial that more than 450 Missouri scientists and educators supported a statement that said "intelligent design...isn't science."

Brattin argues that there are "numerous college professors within biology, school science teachers" who are "banned from the science community" because they want to teach other theories of origin. The National Center for Science Education's Meikle agrees—the bill really could "open the door for teachers who are opposed to evolution to bring in creationist materials." That's why his group is "hoping it doesn't pass."

http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_16/brattin3.jpg

[Midtowner]

The American Taliban...

[yermom]

*smh*

[FaninAma]

The American Taliban...

I understand that you disagree with the guy but you lose all credibility with statements like that and the sad part is that I think you actually believe it. Why are you so bigoted toward religious people? And I am saying this as somebody who hasn't stepped foot inside a church in years.

[sappstuf]

The American Taliban...

Oh yes.. Introducing a bill in the US is exactly like the Taliban beheading 17 people because they were dancing.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

There should be space available for these types of writings - over in the fiction section of the library with the Harry Potter books.

[Fraggle145]

I'm not saying they are the taliban, but the religious right specifically, and a lot of religious people generally, have a pretty strong track record (see above article - they try similar laws like this every year in almost every state) of trying to force their beliefs down someone else's throat. At least that has been my experience throughout my life. It gets old.

[sappstuf]

I'm not saying they are the taliban, but the religious right specifically, and a lot of religious people generally, have a pretty strong track record (see above article - they try similar laws like this every year in almost every state) of trying to force their beliefs down someone else's throat. At least that has been my experience throughout my life. It gets old.

Trying to force something down someone else's throat in a manner consistent with our laws is nothing like cutting someone's throat and then keep cutting until the head comes off.

Do you think this person's bill has any chance of passing? I don't.

[FaninAma]

I'm not saying they are the taliban, but the religious right specifically, and a lot of religious people generally, have a pretty strong track record (see above article - they try similar laws like this every year in almost every state) of trying to force their beliefs down someone else's throat. At least that has been my experience throughout my life. It gets old.

No, I think you on the left have created this huge strawman(or bogeyman) of religous types and are so rabid about opposing anything they want that you resort to name-calling and other efforts to stifle any debtae on the subject. What are you afraid of....that they will convince enough other people to go along with their point of view? I thought that was what the democratic process was all about.

And don't you dare resort to the level of Midtowner by trying to compare people using the democratic process to the Taliban who use terror and violence to achieve their means. It is intellectually weak.

[Harry Beanbag]

I understand that you disagree with the guy but you lose all credibility with statements like that and the sad part is that I think you actually believe it. Why are you so bigoted toward religious people? And I am saying this as somebody who hasn't stepped foot inside a church in years.


Liberalism is some people's religion. And it is all powerful.

[FaninAma]

There should be space available for these types of writings - over in the fiction section of the library with the Harry Potter books.

Can you comment on the mathematical probability of a life sustaining genetic code spontaneously forming out of an organic milieu being one in several hundred billion? I really don't know how life began on this planet but to ridicule another's theory because it seems so improbable only to replace it with another theory that is equally improbable seems a bit ironic to me.

[KantoSooner]

I have spent huge chunks of my life living in other countries (my work, earlier for my dad's job). While I've always loved this country above all others and enjoy living here and will, so I believe now, live here for the balance of my days, it is always a shock to come back after being abroad.
The absolutely overwhelming role played by religion in our public life is comparable only to the atmosphere in Saudi, Iran or perhaps Pakistan. Even places like Indonesia don't have anything close to the degree of religious control exercised by Christianity in this country.
You can favor that or not, it is a striking feature of our national character, however.

[olevetonahill]

What the hell is it about religion that scares some of you so much?
The dude's Bill is just saying EQUAL time.
You act like anyone who disagrees with MAN made Climate change is some kinda Idiot, Yet you reject any form of Christianity out of hand.
Its Ok in MHO that you dont want to accept others beliefs, But why must you ridicule them for having those beliefs?

[rock on sooner]

I believe that anyone and everyone is entitled to their own ideas and
beliefs. Where I take issue with Brattin (or anyone else) is when he
"redefines" fundamental principles to fit his legislative efforts e.g....
hypothesis, theory and destiny. I can understand why he does, though.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I have spent huge chunks of my life living in other countries (my work, earlier for my dad's job). While I've always loved this country above all others and enjoy living here and will, so I believe now, live here for the balance of my days, it is always a shock to come back after being abroad.
The absolutely overwhelming role played by religion in our public life is comparable only to the atmosphere in Saudi, Iran or perhaps Pakistan. Even places like Indonesia don't have anything close to the degree of religious control exercised by Christianity in this country.
You can favor that or not, it is a striking feature of our national character, however.

Could you be more specific? I'd like to know what control is exercised by Christianity in this country.

[SicEmBaylor]

Calling them "American Taliban" ranks right up there with pulling the "Hitler/Nazi" card with anyone you disagree with.

When they start executing women for showing their face in public, blowing up secular monuments, and sponsoring terror organizations that kill thousands of innocent people THEN you can call them "American Taliban."

[Soonerjeepman]

I'm not saying they are the taliban, but the religious right specifically, and a lot of religious people generally, have a pretty strong track record (see above article - they try similar laws like this every year in almost every state) of trying to force their beliefs down someone else's throat. At least that has been my experience throughout my life. It gets old.

but yet having the schools teach evolution as THE way isn't? If the libs are so bent on allowing all the other issues to be put in schools - homosexuality, global warming, etc they ought to allow the other side of the argument as well.

[rock on sooner]

I have spent huge chunks of my life living in other countries (my work, earlier for my dad's job). While I've always loved this country above all others and enjoy living here and will, so I believe now, live here for the balance of my days, it is always a shock to come back after being abroad.
The absolutely overwhelming role played by religion in our public life is comparable only to the atmosphere in Saudi, Iran or perhaps Pakistan. Even places like Indonesia don't have anything close to the degree of religious control exercised by Christianity in this country.
You can favor that or not, it is a striking feature of our national character, however.

I've had more than casual interaction with Islamists in Pakistan and
here in the U.S. in universtiy settings and, respectfully, I disagree with
your characterizations of Christianity's control versus Islam's control. I
don't think there is any comparison. Even our most extreme groups pale
in comparison.

[Soonerjeepman]

I have spent huge chunks of my life living in other countries (my work, earlier for my dad's job). While I've always loved this country above all others and enjoy living here and will, so I believe now, live here for the balance of my days, it is always a shock to come back after being abroad.
The absolutely overwhelming role played by religion in our public life is comparable only to the atmosphere in Saudi, Iran or perhaps Pakistan. Even places like Indonesia don't have anything close to the degree of religious control exercised by Christianity in this country.
You can favor that or not, it is a striking feature of our national character, however.

well, I'm think 60% and above of Americans are Christian...but we are no where CLOSE to those countries...lol

[Midtowner]

Oh yes.. Introducing a bill in the US is exactly like the Taliban beheading 17 people because they were dancing.

On the level of extremism, I'd agree with you. On the level of basic philosophy, I wouldn't. I'm not bigoted against religious people. I'm stating the fact that they are willfully ignorant of facts and want to convert others to their own willful ignorance. That sort of thinking is dangerous on many levels.

[KantoSooner]

Turd, In reply to your request for specificity, here are a few examples. Opening every public meeting with a prayer. Even in most Islamic countries that is not done. Habitual inclusion of church leaders in the steering committees of every public organization of note. Obligatory consultation by the President with church leaders (see: Billy Graham). Mandatory church membership and attendance by every elected official (who has any hope of being elected). Religious involvement in vetting school texts. Public funding of religious organizations through tax exemptions, tax write offs and directly through the funding of 'social support and welfare' operations.
It's not that it's legally mandated, it's just the way we do things in this country. It's a very strong characteristic of our society and one that is only approached in certain parts of the Islamic world. It even sets us apart from Canada.

[Midtowner]

http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_16/brattin3.jpg

More like a huge dumb ***.

[olevetonahill]

On the level of extremism, I'd agree with you. On the level of basic philosophy, I wouldn't. I'm not bigoted against religious people. I'm stating the fact that they are willfully ignorant of facts and want to convert others to their own willful ignorance. That sort of thinking is dangerous on many levels.

Hey Matlock, If It could be Proven beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists . Would you accept it?

[sappstuf]

On the level of extremism, I'd agree with you. On the level of basic philosophy, I wouldn't. I'm not bigoted against religious people. I'm stating the fact that they are willfully ignorant of facts and want to convert others to their own willful ignorance. That sort of thinking is dangerous on many levels.

But willful ignorance isn't what made the Taliban stick out is it? It was the brutal repression of their people. The didn't want to convert anyone. They subjugated the population and killed anyone who made a peep about it.

[olevetonahill]

Hey Matlock, If It could be Proven beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists . Would you accept it?

Heh.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQU-vsGMtW8tuij8YEl_JOXE-Dj39K72bNHa_OoZrWs5dPJha7x

[FaninAma]

I have spent huge chunks of my life living in other countries (my work, earlier for my dad's job). While I've always loved this country above all others and enjoy living here and will, so I believe now, live here for the balance of my days, it is always a shock to come back after being abroad.
The absolutely overwhelming role played by religion in our public life is comparable only to the atmosphere in Saudi, Iran or perhaps Pakistan. Even places like Indonesia don't have anything close to the degree of religious control exercised by Christianity in this country.
You can favor that or not, it is a striking feature of our national character, however.

As a non-Christian I have no problem with it as long as they express their opinions through the democratic process. I do get fatigued from the absurd comparisons(not what you said) between the religious activists here and those found in totalitarian countries.

[FaninAma]

On the level of extremism, I'd agree with you. On the level of basic philosophy, I wouldn't. I'm not bigoted against religious people. I'm stating the fact that they are willfully ignorant of facts and want to convert others to their own willful ignorance. That sort of thinking is dangerous on many levels.

This statement alone is proof of your bigotry.

[FaninAma]

I believe that anyone and everyone is entitled to their own ideas and
beliefs. Where I take issue with Brattin (or anyone else) is when he
"redefines" fundamental principles to fit his legislative efforts e.g....
hypothesis, theory and destiny. I can understand why he does, though.

Then if his constituents disagree with what he is doing they can vote him out of office. You can even donate money or time to his opponent in the next election.

[Ton Loc]

Weird, I don't remember learning a single thing about creationism or the ridiculously named intelligent design in school. I thought that was all church stuff. It was all evolution at my ****-poor independent out in the middle of nowhere K-8 school. Good luck teaching me anything by the time HS rolled around - I already "knew" everything.

Besides, what's the big argument. I don't think this is getting in; and even if it does its Missouri - they can mess up their own state.

[KantoSooner]

Hey Matlock, If It could be Proven beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists . Would you accept it?

I'm personally with Spinoza on this one: you can say that God is, or isn't. And that is a matter of faith. After that it's the height of human arrogance to assert that we know what that unfathomable being wants, believes or is.

Now, Spinoza was a Spanish Jew who was harrassed out of Spain by the Inquisition and moved to Holland....where he spent his time writing and being harrassed by the local Rabbi's, so take his feelings on the matter with that background.

[olevetonahill]

Kanto, That wasn't the question I'd really like Matlock to answer but I think he went and hid from a direct question.

[rock on sooner]

Then if his constituents disagree with what he is doing they can vote him out of office. You can even donate money or time to his opponent in the next election.

Fan, to state the obvious, you are correct. It does seem that Missouri
has more than its share of "unusual" thinkers...Todd Akin comes to mind..
and, to Missouri's credit, most of those don't get very far with the thinking.

On another point, to legislate new, convenient definitions for heretofore
generally accepted scientific terms to fit the "unusual" thinking takes chutzpah
of a high order...imo...

[Midtowner]

Hey Matlock, If It could be Proven beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists . Would you accept it?

If you could quantify God, sure. If you're about to hit me with some version of Aquinas' old ontological argument, let's just say that it is actually very possible that something can come from nothing.

[Fraggle145]

No, I think you on the left have created this huge strawman(or bogeyman) of religous types and are so rabid about opposing anything they want that you resort to name-calling and other efforts to stifle any debtae on the subject. What are you afraid of....that they will convince enough other people to go along with their point of view? I thought that was what the democratic process was all about.

And don't you dare resort to the level of Midtowner by trying to compare people using the democratic process to the Taliban who use terror and violence to achieve their means. It is intellectually weak.

Did I do that? Did I say they were the taliban? No. And I said from my one personal experience, I have had religious people trying to shove their views down my throat my whole life. That happens in Owasso, OK all the time. You dont know my personal experience. I am not trying to create some bogeyman, nor did I call anyone names.

As far as intelligent design goes, there just isnt any science to it. Its about belief, not about proving or disproving facts. So there really can be no rational scientific debate about it. Now if it was in a class on religion or something else then sure go for it. But sentiments like "god made it that way" dont belong in science.

[Fraggle145]

but yet having the schools teach evolution as THE way isn't? If the libs are so bent on allowing all the other issues to be put in schools - homosexuality, global warming, etc they ought to allow the other side of the argument as well.

Because there is no other side of the argument from a scientific perspective.

[Fraggle145]

Hey Matlock, If It could be Proven beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists . Would you accept it?

Yes. But that by definition would make god scientific as it/his/her existence could be proven/disproven.

[Fraggle145]

I believe that anyone and everyone is entitled to their own ideas and
beliefs. Where I take issue with Brattin (or anyone else) is when he
"redefines" fundamental principles to fit his legislative efforts e.g....
hypothesis, theory and destiny. I can understand why he does, though.

It just blows my mind. that a science "buff" thinks he can just say - here is the actual definition of all of these scientific terms. It'd be like me going to anyone else's job and trying to tell them how to do it.

[olevetonahill]

If you could quantify God, sure. If you're about to hit me with some version of Aquinas' old ontological argument, let's just say that it is actually very possible that something can come from nothing.

Nice 2 step shuffle , Now answer the question. yes or no.
Simply asked if God could be proven beyond "Reasonable doubt" .

[Midtowner]

Nice 2 step shuffle , Now answer the question. yes or no.

If science could prove God exists, then it'd be scientific fact and we'd no longer need faith.

Okay, so now you go on ahead and provide me with some philosophical ontological argument at which point I state that no, it cannot be scientifically proved that nothing comes from nothing and that in fact, it can be demonstrated, at least mathematically, that something comes from nothing all the time.

Read on if you like.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/02/02/can-you-get-something-for-noth/

[olevetonahill]

If science could prove God exists, then it'd be scientific fact and we'd no longer need faith.

Okay, so now you go on ahead and provide me with some philosophical ontological argument at which point I state that no, it cannot be scientifically proved that nothing comes from nothing and that in fact, it can be demonstrated, at least mathematically, that something comes from nothing all the time.

Read on if you like.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/02/02/can-you-get-something-for-noth/

Are you that ****in Gun shy of me?
Can you not just give a Yes or no?
Im not gonna hit you with anything else. I'd just like to know your answer. Yes or No .

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Oh yes.. Introducing a bill in the US is exactly like the Taliban beheading 17 people because they were dancing.Almost...Christianity(and Judaism, are actually worse, MUCH worse than Islam, since they have lots of capitalists in their ranks)

[Midtowner]

Are you that ****in Gun shy of me?
Can you not just give a Yes or no?
Im not gonna hit you with anything else. I'd just like to know your answer. Yes or No .

Sure, I'd believe in God if science could prove its existence beyond a reasonable doubt.

[olevetonahill]

Was that so hard? But why limit it to science?

[Blue]

I'm not saying they are the taliban, but the religious right specifically, and a lot of religious people generally, have a pretty strong track record (see above article - they try similar laws like this every year in almost every state) of trying to force their beliefs down someone else's throat. At least that has been my experience throughout my life. It gets old.

But it's A-OK when its a belief you believe in like Gay Marriage and Abortion right?

[Soonerjeepman]

Blue...you know that's the libs way..."do what you want as long as I ok it".

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Blue...you know that's the libs way..."do what you want as long as I ok it".Also, "what makes you think your ideas should even be heard? I fershureashell don't" -Johnny Lib

[Fraggle145]

But it's A-OK when its a belief you believe in like Gay Marriage and Abortion right?

Science isnt about beliefs.

[olevetonahill]

Science isnt about beliefs.

Tell em Bro

You one of the few Libs I admire. You state your case nd dont resort to name calling or acting Like you Know everything.

Guess thats why YOU Posse. :watermelon:

[Midtowner]

Was that so hard? But why limit it to science?

Because at one time, it was generally accepted that there were four elements. Earth, wind, air and fire. So said the great philosopher Aristotle. He even proved it logically. He was, of course, wrong and science proved as much.

St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summae Theologicae, using that same classical logic created the logical proofs for the existence of God and the famous ontological argument. You can read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

The essence of those arguments are that there must be a logical "first mover" because if you go back to the original cause of everything, there has to be something which characteristically cannot not be. That's what Aquinas refers to as God. He also proves logically that the natural order of things, the direction rivers flow, etc., had to be ordered by something, and that's God.

Now in that sense, I suppose you could say that there is a God and that God is infinity and God is physics and God is the natural order of the universe and that would all be perfectly logical and even scientifically provable, though the label is arbitrary. Where you get wonky and totally unprovable is when you start to believe that your "God" has a will of its own and a plan for the future. Where you get really wonky is when you say that God loves us all infinitely and keeps records on when we are bad or good and despite his infinite love will send us to Hell if we **** him off and that he sent his only son, who he knocked up a virgin to make to Earth to die for all of our sins and that the son and a holy ghost and himself live on to judge the living and the dead for all eternity and that one day the angels and their choirs and all of that stuff will do battle and there'll be a Leviathan [godzilla?] and that the unlucky will be thrown into a lake of fire and that the good will get eternal life and that there's a mark of the beast and whatnot.

[Midtowner]

Tell em Bro

You one of the few Libs I admire. You state your case nd dont resort to name calling or acting Like you Know everything.

Guess thats why YOU Posse. :watermelon:

Ah yes. We are all aware of your determined stand against incivility and name calling.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSpZDxy6ZPsXToD2YWZRPRKDxKOrcftf zw_qMhXWtQkop2i0yJPkg

[FaninAma]

Did I do that? Did I say they were the taliban?
No, you did not. I just come to expect that form so many on the left.


No. And I said from my one personal experience, I have had religious people trying to shove their views down my throat my whole life. That happens in Owasso, OK all the time. You dont know my personal experience. I am not trying to create some bogeyman, nor did I call anyone names.

As far as intelligent design goes, there just isnt any science to it. Its about belief, not about proving or disproving facts. So there really can be no rational scientific debate about it. Now if it was in a class on religion or something else then sure go for it. But sentiments like "god made it that way" dont belong in science.
That is a reasonable argument. The purpose of my counter argument was to point out that the evolutionists ask individuals to accept some pretty statistically unlikely scenarios to fill in the gaps of their theory. I definitely think that evoultion has contributed to the diversity and variety of life on the planet today. I am still not sold that the theory provides much support on intra-kingdom, phyllum, genus, and specie "jumps" which would have to happen for me to fully accept evolution as the sole explanation for how we arrived at this point on our planet.

[olevetonahill]

Ah yes. We are all aware of your determined stand against incivility and name calling.

I only call a Dumbass a Dumbass AFTER they have proven thats what they are. Ya Dumbass.

[Midtowner]

I only call a Dumbass a Dumbass AFTER they have proven thats what they are. Ya Dumbass.

Then we can agree to disagree.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Can you comment on the mathematical probability of a life sustaining genetic code spontaneously forming out of an organic milieu being one in several hundred billion? I really don't know how life began on this planet but to ridicule another's theory because it seems so improbable only to replace it with another theory that is equally improbable seems a bit ironic to me.

True Story:

I just tossed a die 12 times and got:

3, 6, 2, 4, 2, 6, 1, 2, 4, 5, 4, 4.

That particular sequence has a probability of 1 out of 2,176,782,336. Its probability is about 1 out of 2 billion!!!

But it happened! So it that evidence that God influenced the outcome because otherwise how could something so improbable happen?!

And I tossed the die only 12 times. Imagine what the probability is for each simple event when it's tossed a thousand times.

Of course the truth is, innumerable things happen every instant in time that have an infinitesimally small probability. But they still happen. The probabilites are so small because lots of things can happen.

[KantoSooner]

Fanin, final chapter of Dawkins, 'The Selfish Gene' lays out one pretty decent scenario for that start.

[olevetonahill]

Then we can agree to disagree.

So yer sayin I called you a Dumbass BEFORE you proved you were one?

[Midtowner]

But it happened! So it that evidence that God influenced the outcome because otherwise how could something so improbable happen?!

Because we live in a universe of infinite possibility.

Douglas Adams once explored this concept in great detail with his infinite possibility ship.

[Midtowner]

So yer sayin I called you a Dumbass BEFORE you proved you were one?

I'm saying you're an ignorant rube if you think you proved anything.

[olevetonahill]

I'm saying you're an ignorant rube if you think you proved anything.

Uh Excuse me Mr Knowitallimbetterthanyou.
Where did I say I proved anything?
I rest my case Ya dumbass.

[rock on sooner]

Science isnt about beliefs.

Yup, it's about hypothesis, theory, double blind studies, data gathering,
empirical testing, proving, disproving, measuring, reviews, more testing,
conclusions, peer reviews, etc.

[Midtowner]

http://digitaljournal.com/img/1/5/1/7/7/5/i/1/0/1/o/religion-and-science.jpg

http://godlesspaladin.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/science-vs-faith.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3576/3364089701_d0da9beccf_m.jpg

http://thesuperjesus.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/science-v-religion.jpg

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/www.ign.com/17256/2011/02/diagram-b.jpg

[Fraggle145]

Tell em Bro

You one of the few Libs I admire. You state your case nd dont resort to name calling or acting Like you Know everything.

Guess thats why YOU Posse. :watermelon:

Hell I'm honest. I dont know a whole lot about much. I know a lot about little!

http://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/Vet.png

[Fraggle145]

That is a reasonable argument. The purpose of my counter argument was to point out that the evolutionists ask individuals to accept some pretty statistically unlikely scenarios to fill in the gaps of their theory. I definitely think that evoultion has contributed to the diversity and variety of life on the planet today. I am still not sold on that the theory provides much support on intra-kingdom, phyllum, genus, and specie "jumps" that would have to happen for me to fully accept evolution as the sole explanation for how we arrived at this point on our planet.

I can accept that. It makes sense to me just because of how similar genomes are within most organisms. To me the origin of "life" has a lot more questions about it than evolution. Evolution just really has to do with what happened after life showed up.

Also, man I cant spell "one" = "own". Blech.

[olevetonahill]

Hell I'm honest. I dont know a whole lot about much. I know a lot about little!

http://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/Vet.png

heh,
Thats why you are a Good guy bro
You state things as YOU see them with out ridiculing others

[Sooner98]

That is a reasonable argument. The purpose of my counter argument was to point out that the evolutionists ask individuals to accept some pretty statistically unlikely scenarios to fill in the gaps of their theory. I definitely think that evoultion has contributed to the diversity and variety of life on the planet today. I am still not sold on that the theory provides much support on intra-kingdom, phyllum, genus, and specie "jumps" that would have to happen for me to fully accept evolution as the sole explanation for how we arrived at this point on our planet.

And yet, Darwinian evolution is somehow taught in our schools as though it was proven fact, despite all of its holes, flaws, and statistical improbability. It is nothing more than a religion based not on evidence that is provable and repeatable by observation and experimentation (no one has ever observed a species evolving into another species, or proteins self-assembling in nature, or billions of nucleotides assembling into a double-helix), but upon circumstantial evidence, theory, and FAITH. That is, faith that all things have happened naturally and that we won't one day stand in front of a Creator to whom we will be accountable to for the things we have done in our lives.

So tell me, exactly whose religion is it that is getting shoved down the throats of millions of students in public schools every day?

[Blue]

Science isnt about beliefs.



Last time I checked evolution was still a theory. And that makes it a belief.

It is about arrogance though. I you want a good laugh read a science book for every year since 1000. To think you figured it all out in 2013 is laughable.

[Fraggle145]

And yet, Darwinian evolution is somehow taught in our schools as though it was proven fact, despite all of its holes, flaws, and statistical improbability. It is nothing more than a religion based not on evidence that is provable and repeatable by observation and experimentation (no one has ever observed a species evolving into another species, or proteins self-assembling in nature, or billions of nucleotides assembling into a double-helix), but upon circumstantial evidence, theory, and FAITH. That is, faith that all things have happened naturally and that we won't one day stand in front of a Creator to whom we will be accountable to for the things we have done in our lives.

So tell me, exactly whose religion is it that is getting shoved down the throats of millions of students in public schools every day?

Actually I would argue we have seen species evolve into new species. You just need to look at the bacterial evolution literature to see these observations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

It just depends on how you define species.

Evolution doesnt have to do with how DNA or proteins assemble, just selection on the organisms that rely on their assembly.

[Fraggle145]

Last time I checked evolution was still a theory. And that makes it a belief.

It is about arrogance though. I fyou want a good laugh read a science book for every year since 1000. To think yo figured it all out in 2013 is laughable.

Your definition of theory and science's definition of theory are very different.

But you are right, Evolution is still potentially able to be disproved. And this is what makes it science and not faith. It is what is accepted as our best current state of knowledge and our current understanding of how the world works based on hundreds of thousands of tests of evolution since its inception - none of which has disproved evolution yet.

[Midtowner]

And yet, Darwinian evolution is somehow taught in our schools as though it was proven fact, despite all of its holes, flaws, and statistical improbability.

Prove Darwin's Law wrong and science will consider it revolutionary and reinterpret everything using your evidence.


It is nothing more than a religion based not on evidence that is provable and repeatable by observation and experimentation (no one has ever observed a species evolving into another species, or proteins self-assembling in nature, or billions of nucleotides assembling into a double-helix)

You're wrong.

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/www.ign.com/17256/2011/02/diagram-b.jpg scroll down to 5.0 "Observed Instances of Speciation."

And the origins of DNA can be read about here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bStudyorigins.shtml


but upon circumstantial evidence, theory, and FAITH. That is, faith that all things have happened naturally and that we won't one day stand in front of a Creator to whom we will be accountable to for the things we have done in our lives.

The only faith involved is the faith that the scientists making breakthroughs aren't making things up without evidence. Peer review prevents that though, so it's pretty reliable unless you think it's a vast conspiracy against God. Then, I've got a tinfoil hat for you.


So tell me, exactly whose religion is it that is getting shoved down the throats of millions of students in public schools every day?

The Christian one in many cases. The Muslim one in others. The Jewish one in some places.

[KantoSooner]

Evolution is a theory in the sense that it is open to challenge. You have a better explanation for observed facts? Go on then and let's hear it. Only one caveat: if you want to play the game, your improved explanation must also have evidence that supports it and is indepedently reproducible.
I think it would be very rare to find a scientist who would claim to have the answers to all things in this year or in any other year. I'm afraid the only folks who are claiming that are on your side of this little kerfuffle.
Evolution can be easily demonstrated by observations of finches in the Galapagos Islands. It's been observed there in real time by a couple (I forget their names) who've lived there for something like 40 years and carefully documented generations of finches evolving new characteristics in response to enviromental stimulae. Likewise, evolution is clearly seen in any number of insect and microbial populations.
Until something comes along that better explains the copious data set that's been assembled over the past 175 years, evolution's the only game in town.
But that doesn't explain the origin(s?) of life, just how the game works after life exists.
There are other theories about that question. Some of them are having serious work done on them, right now, on Mars. By one of the few programs our government spends money on that is truly visionary: NASA.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

And yet, Darwinian evolution is somehow taught in our schools as though it was proven fact, despite all of its holes, flaws, and statistical improbability. It is nothing more than a religion based not on evidence that is provable and repeatable by observation and experimentation (no one has ever observed a species evolving into another species, or proteins self-assembling in nature, or billions of nucleotides assembling into a double-helix), but upon circumstantial evidence, theory, and FAITH. That is, faith that all things have happened naturally and that we won't one day stand in front of a Creator to whom we will be accountable to for the things we have done in our lives.

So tell me, exactly whose religion is it that is getting shoved down the throats of millions of students in public schools every day?How does evolution provide for the life forms of reproduction, cells splitting, development of sperm and egg, laying of eggs, development of live birth? all as unknown as existence itself.

[Sooner98]

Actually I would argue we have seen species evolve into new species. You just need to look at the bacterial evolution literature to see these observations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

It just depends on how you define species.

Evolution doesnt have to do with how DNA or proteins assemble, just selection on the organisms that rely on their assembly.

You're right, Darwin's theory isn't about DNA or proteins, but the narrative which is taught in public schools alongside his theory is from an entirely naturalistic worldview which says that simple molecules developed into more complex molecules, which developed into proteins, which developed into nucleotides, which developed into DNA/RNA, which helped build the first living cell, etc. etc. This is all purely theory that someone came up with, and not based on any observable scientific evidence, yet it is taught as fact, when it shouldn't be.

[Fraggle145]

It's been observed there in real time by a couple (I forget their names) who've lived there for something like 40 years and carefully documented generations of finches evolving new characteristics in response to enviromental stimulae.

The Grants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Rosemary_Grant

[Midtowner]

You're right, Darwin's theory isn't about DNA or proteins, but the narrative which is taught in public schools alongside his theory is from an entirely naturalistic worldview which says that simple molecules developed into more complex molecules, which developed into proteins, which developed into nucleotides, which developed into DNA/RNA, which helped build the first living cell, etc. etc. This is all purely theory that someone came up with, and not based on any observable scientific evidence, yet it is taught as fact, when it shouldn't be.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bStudyorigins.shtml

But by all means, if you can find a crashed alien spaceship with a vial called "proto-DNA" on it or can get God to manifest itself and appear at a major biology convention to explain how the Earth is 6,000 years old and how Jesus rode around on a velociraptor, then we'll all be very interested to hear about it.

[Fraggle145]

How does evolution provide for the life forms of reproduction, cells splitting, development of sperm and egg, laying of eggs, development of live birth? all as unknown as existence itself.

Actually reproduction is and inheritance are some of the pillars of evolution. The natural selection aspect is all about who can best reproduce themselves. All of those developments enhanced the ability of the organisms that used them to reproduce and hence were selected for. How they were developed is an interesting question (likely through mutation and selection favoring those mutations) as is the question about why is there sex in the first place (likely because genetic diversity improves one's ability to survive to reproduction).

[Fraggle145]

You're right, Darwin's theory isn't about DNA or proteins, but the narrative which is taught in public schools alongside his theory is from an entirely naturalistic worldview which says that simple molecules developed into more complex molecules, which developed into proteins, which developed into nucleotides, which developed into DNA/RNA, which helped build the first living cell, etc. etc. This is all purely theory that someone came up with, and not based on any observable scientific evidence, yet it is taught as fact, when it shouldn't be.

Here's a good place to start... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

[KantoSooner]

Fraggle, you are involved in education. Are not these concepts taught in the public schools here? This is extremely elementary stuff.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Actually reproduction is and inheritance are some of the pillars of evolution. The natural selection aspect is all about who can best reproduce themselves. All of those developments enhanced the ability of the organisms that used them to reproduce and hence were selected for. How they were developed is an interesting question (likely through mutation and selection favoring those mutations) as is the question about why is there sex in the first place (likely because genetic diversity improves one's ability to survive to reproduction).As far as I know, the unknowns are how eggs and sperm first developed, live births and other stuff. I am in no way denying the likelihood of evolution. There are so many gaps etc. that have been mentioned here, leaving lots of questions we have no answers for, but to not consider that some things could forever be inexplicable is not logical.

[Sooner5030]

meh.....lots of biatching on this thread. I can understand the frustration in dealing with puritans but this is a non-issue. Over half of the kids in these classes are not listening in the first place, another 15% don't understand what is being taught to them and the rest will develop their own opinions later on.

Libs sure do waste their time biatching about the little things.

More importantly than what is being taught in our schools....can I buy whiskey on sundays when traveling through Oklahoma?

If not then F the Puritans. Why do you hate freedom?

[Fraggle145]

As far as I know, the unknowns are how eggs and sperm first developed, live births and other stuff. I am in no way denying the likelihood of evolution. There are so many gaps etc. that have been mentioned here, leaving lots of questions we have no answers for, but to not consider that some things could forever be inexplicable is not logical.

There may be some things that are forever beyond our understanding, especially our lifetimes understanding.

But look at how much we learn almost daily now and it is only getting faster. Genetic sequencing is soooo cheap now and only getting cheaper. There is so much more that we can learn there. Its technology and reduction in cost is outpacing the change in technology capable to process all the information. There is just so much that we are able to understand now that we never could have imagined 400,000-50,000 yrs ago when we were barely making fire. Hell thin about how much we have learned since electricity was discovered... The evolution of our technology is just a much a part of our evolution as is the process of natural selection. It truly is mind-boggling to think about. So its hard for me to think of things that will remain outside of our understanding so long as we can persist through the eons.

For example about sperm origination: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061112234808.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100715172000.htm

[Fraggle145]

Fraggle, you are involved in education. Are not these concepts taught in the public schools here? This is extremely elementary stuff.

They really arent. Our science curriculum graded an F. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=19&articleid=20120211_19_A15_Olhmee428072

When they get to my classes in intro biology lab they just look at me cross-eyed when I mention evolution and some refuse to learn it.

[sappstuf]

There may be some things that are forever beyond our understanding, especially our lifetimes understanding.

But look at how much we learn almost daily now and it is only getting faster. Genetic sequencing is soooo cheap now and only getting cheaper. There is so much more that we can learn there. Its technology and reduction in cost is outpacing the change in technology capable to process all the information. There is just so much that we are able to understand now that we never could have imagined 400,000-50,000 yrs ago when we were barely making fire. Hell thin about how much we have learned since electricity was discovered... The evolution of our technology is just a much a part of our evolution as is the process of natural selection. It truly is mind-boggling to think about. So its hard for me to think of things that will remain outside of our understanding so long as we can persist through the eons.

For example about sperm origination: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061112234808.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100715172000.htm

So we don't understand it, but you have "faith" that someday we will... Interesting.

[Fraggle145]

So we don't understand it, but you have "faith" that someday we will... Interesting.

I'd argue it isnt faith. Going with a hypothesis that Humans will continue to learn new things or innovate new things isnt faith. We've tested that over an over and havent disproven it yet... We'd have to stop having the capacity to learn.

[diverdog]

They really arent. Our science curriculum graded an F. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=19&articleid=20120211_19_A15_Olhmee428072

When they get to my classes in intro biology lab they just look at me cross-eyed when I mention evolution and some refuse to learn it.

Figures.

[okie52]

I'd argue it isnt faith. Going with a hypothesis that Humans will continue to learn new things or innovate new things isnt faith. We've tested that over an over and havent disproven it yet... We'd have to stop having the capacity to learn.

Since AR, KS, LA and Utah all got Bs it would appear being a religious state isn't what is holding us back.

[Fraggle145]

Since AR, KS, LA and Utah all got Bs it would appear being a religious state isn't what is holding us back.

Right, but these states dont incorporate religion into their curriculum for teaching of the sciences... Hence why they got Bs. And they do a better job of defining their curriculum and it is more up to date with the current understanding of core principles needed to understand science.

[KantoSooner]

They really arent. Our science curriculum graded an F. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=19&articleid=20120211_19_A15_Olhmee428072

When they get to my classes in intro biology lab they just look at me cross-eyed when I mention evolution and some refuse to learn it.

That's really too bad. I was quite excited when our state decided to try and encourage medical research as something in which OK could excel and would thus provide support for related industries.

Maybe we'll have to do that with kids from out of state. I guess, though, that, since the school resources are being focused on 'math and science' and we obviously aren't spending anything on the 'science' part, that we can take pride in exceptional results in math, right?

[OU68]

meh.....lots of biatching on this thread. I can understand the frustration in dealing with puritans but this is a non-issue. Over half of the kids in these classes are not listening in the first place, another 15% don't understand what is being taught to them and the rest will develop their own opinions later on.

Libs sure do waste their time biatching about the little things.

More importantly than what is being taught in our schools....can I buy whiskey on sundays when traveling through Oklahoma?

If not then F the Puritans. Why do you hate freedom?

It aint the F'n Puritans, it's the liquor distributors that want to maintain control.

[FaninAma]

Fraggle, education begins at home. If parents haven't instilled a desire to learn and achieve academically by age 4 or 5 teachers rarely have success doing so. It's all about the home environment and priorities of the parents. I actually feel sorry for teachers these days. Public school teachers have an impossible task.

[Fraggle145]

Fraggle, education begans at home. If parents haven't instilled a desire to learn and achieve academically by age 4 or 5 teachers rarely have success doing so. It's all about the home environment and priorities of the parents. I actually feel sorry for teachers these days. Public school teachers have an impossible task.

I totally agree. And the "science and math are hard or boring" attitude seems to be the predominant home environment these days.

[KantoSooner]

Well, I guess the work of the anti-intellectual set is done here.

Science and math are the only things that seem to garner any public support at all (the humanities are either 'irrelevant' or too politically charged, the arts are 'pointless' and do not lead to any clear job path, hell, even p.e. is gone in most schools). And now you tell me that science and math are basically basket cases as well.

I guess all you can do as a teacher is keep an eye open for the kid who read all the national geographics growing up and played a lot with magnifyinig glasses and **** what catches on fire or blows up. You might get one of them every few years. The rest of our kids can grow up to work for people from states that have educational systems.

[yermom]

Fraggle, education begans at home. If parents haven't instilled a desire to learn and achieve academically by age 4 or 5 teachers rarely have success doing so. It's all about the home environment and priorities of the parents. I actually feel sorry for teachers these days. Public school teachers have an impossible task.

luckily for Fraggle, he was raised by a hell of a teacher...

[Fraggle145]

luckily for Fraggle, he was raised by a hell of a teacher...

Amen, to that. :)

[Sooner98]

Prove Darwin's Law wrong and science will consider it revolutionary and reinterpret everything using your evidence.

Actually, the burden of proof should be on those who want to teach these unproven and unprovable theories in our schools. Darwin's theory, and it is still just a theory (not a "law" as you called it) is based on looking at data and then speculating what may have happened, based on the presupposition that things have happened naturally, without a Creator. Intelligent design as an explanation is every bit as valid, in that both are unprovable by scientific means, but both can look at data and conclusions can be made, based on the observer's presuppositions. Either both should be mentioned in textbooks as plausible scenarios, or neither should be.




You're wrong.

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/www.ign.com/17256/2011/02/diagram-b.jpg scroll down to 5.0 "Observed Instances of Speciation."

Linky no worky.



And the origins of DNA can be read about here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bStudyorigins.shtml


Here is a list of some of the words used on that page:

"according to some hypotheses"
"may actually be"
"probably used DNA"
"must have had"
"thought to have arisen"
"suggest"
"could have formed"
"we may never know certain details"

This only confirms the whole point I am trying to make. All that page shows is what they believe may have happened, based upon the data they are looking at, and a lot of speculation. We all know what an ATP molecule is and its importance in catalyzing certain chemical reactions, and how similar in structure it is to an adenine nucleotide. However, there is simply no way to know how an ATP molecule could have arisen on its own (it is not observable anywhere in nature), or how its similarity to adenine would have had any significance, in this supposed abiogenesis narrative. The naturalist looks at it and sees that ATP at some point began reproducing itself and produced adenine nucleotides, while one who subscribes to intelligent design looks at it and says that that is exactly how God planned and created it. Both equally valid, yet scientifically unprovable with what we know.

I think Miller-Urey falls way short of proving anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, as there is simply no way to know the composition of Earth's early atmosphere. A few amino acids collected at the bottom of a flask following a very controlled experiment with conditions created a certain way (hmm, there's that word, "created"), is hardly an explanation of how all 20 amino acids developed, with the proper chirality, formed into proteins, and began performing functions necessary for life to begin. Again, its all speculation, influenced by the observer's pre-existing beliefs. It takes a leap of faith to believe it all happened naturally, which is why I believe this is stepping over the line from science to faith.

[Midtowner]

Science only seeks to prove things, it doesn't always succeed. If you have a better explanation, science is certainly open to that. If it can be tested and observed, it could change everything. All you show there is that you don't really have a grasp of the scientific process. It's not a leap of faith to believe it all happened naturally. We have seen it happen. We've even seen speciation. Science just tells us about what we know now. If you can prove we were brought here by aliens, science will gladly study your data.

[Sooner98]

Evolution is a theory in the sense that it is open to challenge. You have a better explanation for observed facts? Go on then and let's hear it. Only one caveat: if you want to play the game, your improved explanation must also have evidence that supports it and is indepedently reproducible.
I think it would be very rare to find a scientist who would claim to have the answers to all things in this year or in any other year. I'm afraid the only folks who are claiming that are on your side of this little kerfuffle.
Evolution can be easily demonstrated by observations of finches in the Galapagos Islands. It's been observed there in real time by a couple (I forget their names) who've lived there for something like 40 years and carefully documented generations of finches evolving new characteristics in response to enviromental stimulae. Likewise, evolution is clearly seen in any number of insect and microbial populations.
Until something comes along that better explains the copious data set that's been assembled over the past 175 years, evolution's the only game in town.
But that doesn't explain the origin(s?) of life, just how the game works after life exists.
There are other theories about that question. Some of them are having serious work done on them, right now, on Mars. By one of the few programs our government spends money on that is truly visionary: NASA.

I don't think anyone will disagree that different characteristics can evolve within species, such as the Galapagos finches. Changes and differences of color, size, and shape within species are easily documented and observable. Where we differ in belief, and where I believe evolutionists step over the line from science to faith, is that a species will eventually evolve into a species entirely different than what it once was. The finches that you mentioned are today still...finches. The E Coli long-term experiment that Fraggle linked showed that E Coli, after 20,000 generations evolved into...bigger E Coli. It should be taught this way to students, to show that changes in characteristics over time do happen, but that there is no way to know for sure that one species has evolved from another one.

[Fraggle145]

This may be helpful here... http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b11

But I would still argue that most scientists follow Poppers idea that science only moves ahead through falsification.

And evolution could easily be falsified.

[Fraggle145]

I don't think anyone will disagree that different characteristics can evolve within species, such as the Galapagos finches. Changes and differences of color, size, and shape within species are easily documented and observable. Where we differ in belief, and where I believe evolutionists step over the line from science to faith, is that a species will eventually evolve into a species entirely different than what it once was. The finches that you mentioned are today still...finches. The E Coli long-term experiment that Fraggle linked showed that E Coli, after 20,000 generations evolved into...bigger E Coli. It should be taught this way to students, to show that changes in characteristics over time do happen, but that there is no way to know for sure that one species has evolved from another one.

That is because of the multitude of definitions of species... Can you accurately define a species? What do you mean by one species into another one?

I can give you an example: Gray tree frogs. There was a chromosome duplication event that happened in gray tree frogs. They are considered separate species. One species has 2 sets of chromosomes the other has 4. They cant hybridize.

Cordgrass is another example where 2 species have formed a hybrid. That hybrid can no longer reproduce with either of its parent species.

[Fraggle145]

That is because of the multitude of definitions of species... Can you accurately define a species? What do you mean by one species into another one?

I can give you an example: Gray tree frogs. There was a chromosome duplication event that happened in gray tree frogs. They are considered separate species. One species has 2 sets of chromosomes the other has 4. They cant hybridize.

Cordgrass is another example where 2 species have formed a hybrid. That hybrid can no longer reproduce with either of its parent species.

I guess what I would say is species dont become new species overnight (or at least not easily). Modern Homo sapiens have roughly 6% Neanderthal genome. Evolution is constantly in a state of flux and we use the distinct units of species because that is something that humans are great at is categorizing things in order to better understand them. But the truth is while biological species do exist at any given time they are constantly shifting and changing as are their definitions and we actually arent very good at defining them. Especially for microbes... how do you define species in organisms that can take free floating DNA and incorporate it into their genomes?

[KantoSooner]

Thank you Fraggle. Much better than I could have done.
Mules also provide an interesting example of animals that are close enough to mate....but whose offspring are infertile.

And it may not be accepted by the true faith believers, but the fossiel record really does provide enough evidence of evolution that no sane person can really question the broad conclusions.
It's the way life works. Period, the debate is really over.

And that says next to nothing about the ultimate origin(s?) of life. It suggests, but doesn't prove.

[Fraggle145]

And that says next to nothing about the ultimate origin(s?) of life. It suggests, but doesn't prove.

Exactly. Evolution doesnt really deal with the origin of life, but ID does implicitly. That is a big difference.

[Blue]

Well, I guess the work of the anti-intellectual set is done here.

Science and math are the only things that seem to garner any public support at all (the humanities are either 'irrelevant' or too politically charged, the arts are 'pointless' and do not lead to any clear job path, hell, even p.e. is gone in most schools). And now you tell me that science and math are basically basket cases as well.

I guess all you can do as a teacher is keep an eye open for the kid who read all the national geographics growing up and played a lot with magnifyinig glasses and **** what catches on fire or blows up. You might get one of them every few years. The rest of our kids can grow up to work for people from states that have educational systems.

What a snobby "intellectual" reply. I wouldn't expect anything more though. I was honors science, honors math, top 10 etc... But my parents taught me that being humble was better than being a know-it-all. I graduated college. I choose faith in God bc it is logical to me. I don't see how anyone could be atheistic or agnostic. To me that takes much more faith.

[Blue]

It was pointed out to me that that response wasn't really humble ^^^^^^^^^^^^

I was tring to say that to me the creator of the universe is much smarter than me. So I have no problem placing my trust in him. Hopefully he'll forgive me for being a terrible ambassador.

"One does not take a pocket flashlight and shine it on the sun to see if the sun is real! The truth of God's word cannot be subject to the puny light of man's self-centred reason. God's word created what is and must interpret what is."- Graeme Goldsworthy

[SoonerorLater]

On the level of extremism, I'd agree with you. On the level of basic philosophy, I wouldn't. I'm not bigoted against religious people. I'm stating the fact that they are willfully ignorant of facts and want to convert others to their own willful ignorance. That sort of thinking is dangerous on many levels.

Willfully ignorant of what facts?

[Midtowner]

Willfully ignorant of what facts?

That the Earth is not 6,000 years old and Jesus Christ didn't fly around an a pterodactyl and that the rainbow isn't God's promise never to flood us again. That the sun is the center of the solar system, that evolution happened and is happening. Those sorts of things.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

That the Earth is not 6,000 years old and Jesus Christ didn't fly around an a pterodactyl and that the rainbow isn't God's promise never to flood us again. That the sun is the center of the solar system, that evolution happened and is happening. Those sorts of things.

And the FACT that not every person who believes in the creation believes that Jesus rode a dinosaur into Bethlehem. Or that the world is 6000 years old. Or that you're stereotyping and that's a large part of why people like to throw rocks at you.

[olevetonahill]

And the FACT that not every person who believes in the creation believes that Jesus rode a dinosaur into Bethlehem. Or that the world is 6000 years old. Or that you're stereotyping and that's a large part of why people like to throw rocks at you.

I thought the Bible said he rode Matlock into Jerusalem. Ya know an a$s.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

He would've drove his old caprice into Bethlehem, but it got scrapped during Cash for Clunkers.

[Blue]

Where did the bible ever say the sun was the center of the solar system?

In 750 BC Isaiah 40:22 - God is enthroned above the circle of the earth. - about 2000 years before Columbus figured it out.

In the year 250 the scientist Ptolemy declared there were 1,056 stars (He's was prob alot smarter than you) Genesis 15:5 -Look at the sky and count the stars, if you are able to count them.

Jeremiah 33:22 The hosts of heaven can't be counted, the sand of the sea cannot be measured."

The oldest piece of literature known to man...the book of Job knew...Job 26:7 he stretches the northern skies over empty space; HE HANGS THE EARTH ON NOTHING." They only figured that out 500 years ago.

[olevetonahill]

He would've drove his old caprice into Bethlehem, but it got scrapped during Cash for Clunkers.

****in Obammy, Screwin it all up.

[SoonerorLater]

That the Earth is not 6,000 years old and Jesus Christ didn't fly around an a pterodactyl and that the rainbow isn't God's promise never to flood us again. That the sun is the center of the solar system, that evolution happened and is happening. Those sorts of things.

Wow! Who have you been talking to? I've logged quite a few hours in church but I don't recall any of this theology.

[olevetonahill]

Wow! Who have you been talking to? I've logged quite a few hours in church but I don't recall any of this theology.

Dude just keeps throwing that Dull hook in the water hoping to snag something.

[OU68]

Because we live in a universe of infinite possibility.

Douglas Adams once explored this concept in great detail with his infinite possibility ship.

Am I the only one that finds this ironic coming from someone who would choose a dog over a 7 week old human?

[Soonerjeepman]

That the Earth is not 6,000 years old and Jesus Christ didn't fly around an a pterodactyl and that the rainbow isn't God's promise never to flood us again. That the sun is the center of the solar system, that evolution happened and is happening. Those sorts of things.

wow...lol, as bad as y'all bash the Catholic church NONE of that is every taught, preached or believed...but go ahead and believe that..even though I am PROOF that isn't true.

[Fraggle145]

I think he is talking about stuff like this: http://creationmuseum.org/

From the front page:

Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers.

[olevetonahill]

I think he is talking about stuff like this: http://creationmuseum.org/

From the front page:

Holy Hell, Just because a bunch of ****in idiots build a Museum dont mean Christians believe all that horse****.

Sides the Dayum thing is In Kentucky what do you expect from them?

[Fraggle145]

Holy Hell, Just because a bunch of ****in idiots build a Museum dont mean Christians believe all that horse****.

Sides the Dayum thing is In Kentucky what do you expect from them?

I mean I know its Kentucky, but those idjits alone cant support keeping that thing open - I guess people from Mississippi need someplace to go on vacation...

[KantoSooner]

What a snobby "intellectual" reply. I wouldn't expect anything more though. I was honors science, honors math, top 10 etc... But my parents taught me that being humble was better than being a know-it-all. I graduated college. I choose faith in God bc it is logical to me. I don't see how anyone could be atheistic or agnostic. To me that takes much more faith.

What on earth did what I said have to do with your reply? I was/am p.o.'d about the poor state of education in our fair state (from what I can gather). And, yes, I find a strong 'anti-book learnin' strain in many of our state legislators. And I draw a connection between the two. That was, in sum total, what I was talking about.

You may feel free to continue your faith walk now; as I will mine.

[olevetonahill]

I mean I know its Kentucky, but those idjits alone cant support keeping that thing open - I guess people from Mississippi need someplace to go on vacation...

So Let me get this right, Theres a museum in Kentucky that says Jesus rode Dino's and the earth is only 6k years old so That translates to ALL christians believe that ****? Is that what ya sayin Bro?

[Fraggle145]

So Let me get this right, Theres a museum in Kentucky that says Jesus rode Dino's and the earth is only 6k years old so That translates to ALL christians believe that ****? Is that what ya sayin Bro?

No I was kidding around about the Mississippi thing... I just like to make fun of people from Mississippi.

I agree not all Christians believe that shiite, and that they probably arent the majority. But, there are more than a few that do - or that at least profess to believing it. Anyone that follows Falwell does, as I think that he was the primary sponsor of that museum.

http://www.wallz.eu/thumb/600/79363.jpg

[rock on sooner]

Well, gang, I haveta tell ya somethin...readin this thread is, all at
the same time, intellectual (and instructive), sad, head shaking,
laugh out loud funny, (Kentucky and Mississippi deserve it, too),
logical, illogical and most any other adjective that you can think of.

[KantoSooner]

I think I'll go with 'splendid'.

We might just have the roots of the new 'Delete Me' going here.

<hoping against hope.>

[Fraggle145]

Well it is destiny after all.

[KantoSooner]

Has Fortuna's Great Wheel finally turned once more? It is the off-season, after all. Time for mindless entertainment. Yay!

[SoonerBBall]

Actually, the burden of proof should be on those who want to teach these unproven and unprovable theories in our schools. Darwin's theory, and it is still just a theory (not a "law" as you called it) is based on looking at data and then speculating what may have happened, based on the presupposition that things have happened naturally, without a Creator. Intelligent design as an explanation is every bit as valid, in that both are unprovable by scientific means, but both can look at data and conclusions can be made, based on the observer's presuppositions. Either both should be mentioned in textbooks as plausible scenarios, or neither should be.




Linky no worky.



Here is a list of some of the words used on that page:

"according to some hypotheses"
"may actually be"
"probably used DNA"
"must have had"
"thought to have arisen"
"suggest"
"could have formed"
"we may never know certain details"

This only confirms the whole point I am trying to make. All that page shows is what they believe may have happened, based upon the data they are looking at, and a lot of speculation. We all know what an ATP molecule is and its importance in catalyzing certain chemical reactions, and how similar in structure it is to an adenine nucleotide. However, there is simply no way to know how an ATP molecule could have arisen on its own (it is not observable anywhere in nature), or how its similarity to adenine would have had any significance, in this supposed abiogenesis narrative. The naturalist looks at it and sees that ATP at some point began reproducing itself and produced adenine nucleotides, while one who subscribes to intelligent design looks at it and says that that is exactly how God planned and created it. Both equally valid, yet scientifically unprovable with what we know.

I think Miller-Urey falls way short of proving anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, as there is simply no way to know the composition of Earth's early atmosphere. A few amino acids collected at the bottom of a flask following a very controlled experiment with conditions created a certain way (hmm, there's that word, "created"), is hardly an explanation of how all 20 amino acids developed, with the proper chirality, formed into proteins, and began performing functions necessary for life to begin. Again, its all speculation, influenced by the observer's pre-existing beliefs. It takes a leap of faith to believe it all happened naturally, which is why I believe this is stepping over the line from science to faith.

Reading the trash you write kills my brain cells.

Using the phrase " that is exactly how God planned it" falls on its face because it is entirely unprovable since you can't know the will of God. Additionally, as soon as something that God "planned" turns out to be incorrect, where do you go from there? Did God "plan" for it to be taken incorrectly? Also, which God planned it? Old Testament God who demanded blood sacrifice and made women cover their heads or New Testament God who just requires us to repent and accept Jesus as our personal lord and savior? Why can't evolution function exactly as science has proven it does and that be what God planned? Intelligent Design, aside from coming from lunatics, has more gigantic holes in it than evolution. Just because you plug them with God doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

The theory of gravity is just a theory too. Do you accept gravity as we know it or are you going to give us some whack-job explanation about the holes in that one as well?

[kevpks]

I don't think politicians have any business dictating what should appear in a textbook. Textbooks should be written by experts in a discipline and put under scrutiny by a team of peer reviewers. Leftists should keep their identity politics out of history books and those on the right should keep their dogma out of science books. I do think students could benefit from courses in theology and religion taught by people with expertise in those fields. However, that is unlikely in this climate. Why would anyone want to force a science teacher to cover religion? The majority don't have the training or desire to do so.

I've worked on textbooks, although admittedly a textbook on Old English is not going to generate controversy like a science book. However, it is a rigorous process of editing and revision so that the book reflects our best ideas about and approaches to the subject. An outside government body with no expertise in my field telling me what to include in a book is a counterproductive attack on academic freedom.

[Sooner98]

That is because of the multitude of definitions of species... Can you accurately define a species? What do you mean by one species into another one?

I can give you an example: Gray tree frogs. There was a chromosome duplication event that happened in gray tree frogs. They are considered separate species. One species has 2 sets of chromosomes the other has 4. They cant hybridize.

Cordgrass is another example where 2 species have formed a hybrid. That hybrid can no longer reproduce with either of its parent species.

I agree that it depends how you define species. In the case of the gray tree frogs types, Hyla versicolor and Hyla chrysoscelis are obviously two different species with a different genetic makeup. It's possible that at some point the genetic makeup changed and one split off from the other, forming a new species. The problem is that we haven't observed this as it happened (if I am wrong, correct me on that), so we are just making an educated guess when we say that. It's also possible that a Creator made two different species, just like they are (gee, I hope I don't send SoonerBBall off on another psychotic rant with that one). It comes down to our presuppositions and faith which one we choose to believe.

As far as the cordgrass and other examples, I guess that could be an example where a different species arises from another, but is a hybridization of 2 species considered the same as one species "evolving" from another? Even so, making the jump from gray tree frog to slightly different gray tree frog, and cordgrass to slightly different cordgrass, to Darwin's Tree of Life diagram is too big of a jump for many to accept as scientific fact.

[Sooner98]

You may feel free to continue your faith walk now; as I will mine.

BINGO.

[Sooner98]

Reading the trash you write kills my brain cells.

Using the phrase " that is exactly how God planned it" falls on its face because it is entirely unprovable since you can't know the will of God. Additionally, as soon as something that God "planned" turns out to be incorrect, where do you go from there? Did God "plan" for it to be taken incorrectly? Also, which God planned it? Old Testament God who demanded blood sacrifice and made women cover their heads or New Testament God who just requires us to repent and accept Jesus as our personal lord and savior? Why can't evolution function exactly as science has proven it does and that be what God planned? Intelligent Design, aside from coming from lunatics, has more gigantic holes in it than evolution. Just because you plug them with God doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

The theory of gravity is just a theory too. Do you accept gravity as we know it or are you going to give us some whack-job explanation about the holes in that one as well?

You sound like a very angry young man, bless your heart. Sounds like someone needs a hug.

[KantoSooner]

Suggest reading "Consilience"

Right up there with 'Sociobiology, The New Synthesis' for title of most important book ever written.

[SoonerBBall]

You sound like a very angry young man, bless your heart. Sounds like someone needs a hug.

Basically the answer I expected from an ID apologist.

[Fraggle145]

I agree that it depends how you define species. In the case of the gray tree frogs types, Hyla versicolor and Hyla chrysoscelis are obviously two different species with a different genetic makeup. It's possible that at some point the genetic makeup changed and one split off from the other, forming a new species. The problem is that we haven't observed this as it happened (if I am wrong, correct me on that), so we are just making an educated guess when we say that. It's also possible that a Creator made two different species, just like they are (gee, I hope I don't send SoonerBBall off on another psychotic rant with that one). It comes down to our presuppositions and faith which one we choose to believe.

As far as the cordgrass and other examples, I guess that could be an example where a different species arises from another, but is a hybridization of 2 species considered the same as one species "evolving" from another? Even so, making the jump from gray tree frog to slightly different gray tree frog, and cordgrass to slightly different cordgrass, to Darwin's Tree of Life diagram is too big of a jump for many to accept as scientific fact.

To me it is equally hard to assume that a creator made every species on earth just as they are now. I would also say the hardest part of fulfilling your one species to another argument is that it is very hard to define when a new species begins and ends. In current scenarios where speciation is ongoing like in Africa's rift lake cichlids, or 3 spined sticklebacks, or this species flock of moths that mate assortitatively based on food preference that I cant remember the name of... Sometimes it is difficult to tell where one species begins and another ends. In cichlids many of them produce fertile offspring if you combine their eggs and sperm, but never will mate behaviorally, but look identical. The reason I brought up the frog is unless both species were created at the same time but with different chromosomal number then one must be derived from the other. In this case versicolor (the tetraploid) is derived from chrysoscelis. And this happened during multiple independent events based on reconstructing the phlogeny based on divergence etc... Here is a link to the article that will hopefully work - http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2410495?uid=3739848&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101675861671

I could logically understand a scenario where a creator set things in motion. I also understand that the origins of life can be argued from a faith perspective, but to me evolution has been rigorously tested and is as proved as science can really get. If someone were to disprove evolution it would be the same as someone disproving gravity. Not impossible, but highly, highly, highly improbable. And I understand that jumping from microevolution to macroevolution can be difficult for some, but for me it is the only way things make sense. Take for instance the evolution of whales. That skull/skeloton has a pretty good fossil record - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans. I also find it interesting that modern birds are derived from dinosaurs. And that T. rex DNA closely aligns with that of a chicken more so than other reptiles. Although more of anecdotal side-note: punctuated-equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium) is a good jumping off point to bring up that points out the difficulty of understanding speciation because different organisms can speciate faster or slower depending on selection events, etc... For some people this just confuses the issue more, so if it does that then I'm sorry. But that is why I brought up the bacteria example. One can see all the possible evolutionary trajectories and how lineages with un-beneficial mutations go "extinct." Eventually given enough time, one could see that citrate processing strain eventually potentially doing something else. I am not sure if they have looked at genomic divergence vs. phentoypic divergence explicitly, but eventually the sequence of the their 16S rDNA would/could be less than 97% similar (the microbial cutoff for "species" - just for arguments sake here I am going to point out that our genomes are less than 1% different than chimpanzee's and hence using the bacterial species cutoff we would be the same species). Anyway, it is interesting to spin the yarn about so to say - keep asking questions and I'll keep trying to answer them...

[Fraggle145]

You sound like a very angry young man, bless your heart. Sounds like someone needs a hug.
Basically the answer I expected from an ID apologist.

Really I think you both need to chill a little bit - at least towards each other. Been guilty of it many times myself. You both came into the discussion with a very strong opinion. Its easy to rub people the wrong way on the interwebs.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I'm not saying they are the taliban, but the religious right specifically, and a lot of religious people generally, have a pretty strong track record (see above article - they try similar laws like this every year in almost every state) of trying to force their beliefs down someone else's throat. At least that has been my experience throughout my life. It gets old.

Liberals ony try to force their beliefs on my wallet.

[C&CDean]

There should be space available for these types of writings - over in the fiction section of the library with the Harry Potter books.

Mother****er, you take that back. Harry Potter is NOT fiction.

[SoonerBBall]

Really I think you both need to chill a little bit - at least towards each other. Been guilty of it many times myself. You both came into the discussion with a very strong opinion. Its easy to rub people the wrong way on the interwebs.

There are certain topics that just kill me, and this is one.

I have a very religious background. Started as Assembly of God/Pentecostal until I was in high school, then moved to a mixture of Methodist and Baptist churches. Once I was able to look back on my upbringing without the religious filter, I realized that Christianity in the US (and most everywhere really) is a far cry from what is actually taught in the bible. It also props up a host of historical fallacies. I could live with all that, though, if the religious right in this country didn't do its damnedest to retard the growth and development of society. People who argue for ID, just like those who argue for the thousands of years old Earth and for abstinence only sex ed, actively promote ignorance and that is something I don't tolerate well.

[FaninAma]

It is a well known fact that the story of Noah's Ark is really the actual account of an enormous space ship that came to this planet from a faraway planet that had been awash in radiation from it's sun for 40 days and 40 nights. Really. I think it's name was Krypton.

Anybody see the movie "Knowing"?

[KantoSooner]

Or, alternatively, a written version of an oral tradition that recorded an historical event such as the filling of the Black Sea, the Mediterranean or the Persian Gulf. All of those were cataclysmic historical events that would have been utter holocausts to the people living in the fertile areas that were flooded. and the floods would have been very quick, perhaps in as little as 40 days and 40 nights.
Most societies in that part of the world have 'flood' myths that are consistent in important detail. It's not as accurate as physical anthropology, but such cross references in folk tales and traditions can be important verifications of artifacts. The Black Sea is now, in fact yielding precisely this sort of data: fishing villages inundated by 400 feet or so of water dating back more than 8,000 years BCE.

[C&CDean]

Yeah, but how'd the salt get in the water?

[KantoSooner]

Chemical reactions, black smokers, volcanic action.
Are you talking sodium chloride salt only, or any mineral salt?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Chemical reactions, black smokers, volcanic action.
Are you talking sodium chloride salt only, or any mineral salt?

Racist!

[KantoSooner]

I know. My shame. My shame.

Seriously, I've just never felt comfortable around potassium citrate. Just feels funny.

[FaninAma]

Calling them "American Taliban" ranks right up there with pulling the "Hitler/Nazi" card with anyone you disagree with.

When they start executing women for showing their face in public, blowing up secular monuments, and sponsoring terror organizations that kill thousands of innocent people THEN you can call them "American Taliban."

Well, I know for a fact that you support slavery because you don't like Lincoln. Heh.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I know. My shame. My shame.

Seriously, I've just never felt comfortable around potassium citrate. Just feels funny.

No worries. I feel the same way around black smokers...

[C&CDean]

And black loafers...

[Fraggle145]

Or, alternatively, a written version of an oral tradition that recorded an historical event such as the filling of the Black Sea, the Mediterranean or the Persian Gulf. All of those were cataclysmic historical events that would have been utter holocausts to the people living in the fertile areas that were flooded. and the floods would have been very quick, perhaps in as little as 40 days and 40 nights.
Most societies in that part of the world have 'flood' myths that are consistent in important detail. It's not as accurate as physical anthropology, but such cross references in folk tales and traditions can be important verifications of artifacts. The Black Sea is now, in fact yielding precisely this sort of data: fishing villages inundated by 400 feet or so of water dating back more than 8,000 years BCE.

One of the coolest explainable stories is the "fishes" component of the loaves and the fishes. In Lake Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee) there are internal waves that can get moving so fast/large due to the high prevailing winds out there that they can bring up oxygen depleted water from the bottom of the lake. This water kills the all of fishes in one small portion of the lake that is relatively flat and shallow. Voila! Fishes!

I dont like loafers in general, I prefer flip flops or house shoes.

[kevpks]

One of the coolest explainable stories is the "fishes" component of the loaves and the fishes. In Lake Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee) there are internal waves that can get moving so fast/large due to the high prevailing winds out there that they can bring up oxygen depleted water from the bottom of the lake. This water kills the all of fishes in one small portion of the lake that is relatively flat and shallow. Voila! Fishes!

I dont like loafers in general, I prefer flip flops or house shoes.

I'm a little confused about this. Why would a Christian need a scientific explanation for one of Jesus' miracles? Isn't the whole idea that through Christ all things are possible? (i.e. the feeding the multitude story in the Gospel). I just don't understand the quest by these biblical "scientists" to find all of these possible yet implausible explanations for every story in the Bible.

Miracle (noun): 1. A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.
2. A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment.

If someone believes in miracles, he or she should not feel the need for every event in the Bible to conform to a scientific explanation. A miracle that can be explained way by natural and scientific laws is not a miracle.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I'm a little confused about this. Why would a Christian need a scientific explanation for one of Jesus' miracles? Isn't the whole idea that through Christ all things are possible? (i.e. the feeding the multitude story in the Gospel). I just don't understand the quest by these biblical "scientists" to find all of these possible yet implausible explanations for every story in the Bible.

Miracle (noun): 1. A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.
2. A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment.

If someone believes in miracles, he or she should not feel the need for every event in the Bible to conform to a scientific explanation. A miracle that can be explained way by natural and scientific laws is not a miracle.

that's what I was saying earlier. this stuff needs to go the the same section of the library as Harry Potter books with all the other magician and wizard literature.

[SoonerorLater]

There are certain topics that just kill me, and this is one.

I have a very religious background. Started as Assembly of God/Pentecostal until I was in high school, then moved to a mixture of Methodist and Baptist churches. Once I was able to look back on my upbringing without the religious filter, I realized that Christianity in the US (and most everywhere really) is a far cry from what is actually taught in the bible. It also props up a host of historical fallacies. I could live with all that, though, if the religious right in this country didn't do its damnedest to retard the growth and development of society. People who argue for ID, just like those who argue for the thousands of years old Earth and for abstinence only sex ed, actively promote ignorance and that is something I don't tolerate well.

Perhaps you could explain the nexus of our cognitive existence?

[kevpks]

Perhaps you could explain the nexus of our cognitive existence?

I'm all for pursuing that question in philosophy and theology class, but not in freshman biology.

By the way, I am all for philosophy and biology being offered in high schools. Students should be given more options with their education. Of course, that would call for a greater investment in our schools.

[SoonerorLater]

I'm all for pursuing that question in philosophy and theology class, but not in freshman biology.

By the way, I am all for philosophy and biology being offered in high schools. Students should be given more options with their education. Of course, that would call for a greater investment in our schools.

Your response describes the root of the problem. We have arbitrarily divided this discussion into religious/philosophical vs. scientific. We should frame it in the context of likely or unlikely. I fall on the side of Intelligent Design as being the more likely. After that it's just a matter of deciding the path to the intelligent designer.

[yermom]

Your response describes the root of the problem. We have arbitrarily divided this discussion into religious/philosophical vs. scientific. We should frame it in the context of likely or unlikely. I fall on the side of Intelligent Design as being the more likely. After that it's just a matter of deciding the path to the intelligent designer.

sure, because that's what you've been indoctrinated to believe

[kevpks]

Your response describes the root of the problem. We have arbitrarily divided this discussion into religious/philosophical vs. scientific. We should frame it in the context of likely or unlikely. I fall on the side of Intelligent Design as being the more likely. After that it's just a matter of deciding the path to the intelligent designer.

Philosophy and theology are not arbitrarily divided from science as disciplines unless you think the whole Western tradition of education (which is based on what they understood of an ancient Greek model) has been a series of arbitrary divisions. They were studied separately even in the Middle Ages. Preparatory work in the trivium was made up of grammar, logic, and rhetoric. It was followed by the quadrivium: arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. The quadrivium was preparatory work for the serious study of philosophy and theology.

Obviously, it makes no sense to follow that particular hierarchy anymore. Our world demands serious study in science and mathematics that follows rigorous methods and principles. Personally, I don't want teachers trained as science educators giving some half-hearted, untestable lecture on God and intelligent design to high school kids already well behind peers in other countries in their understanding of the fundamentals of science. Make sure they know the periodic table and how to label a cell first. Let those with the aptitude for more advanced study of our origins pursue those questions in the manner they see fit in more specialized courses.

If you want an interdisciplinary approach to education, teach kids how a guitar works in physics class. Teach how the Bible was compiled in an English class. That's testable. Making a woman from Adam's rib is not testable.

[Fraggle145]

sure, because that's what you've been indoctrinated to believe

Or because that is what you want to believe, because you dont want to believe that you've been thinking the wrong thing your whole life.

[SoonerorLater]

sure, because that's what you've been indoctrinated to believe

Or perhaps because you don't want to.

[SoonerBBall]

Perhaps you could explain the nexus of our cognitive existence?

Why? It is just carefully selected bait for you to justify your belief in ID.

[Fraggle145]

nexus is a fancy word

[Fraggle145]

This is why I brought this up weeks ago... Here is Oklahoma trying to do the same thing. http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/22/making-it-illegal-to-fail-science-students-who-argue-humans-co-existed-with-dinosaurs/


As American science students struggle to compete with the global competition, Oklahoma is moving forward (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/oklahoma-hr1674-science-evolution-climate-change) with a law that could ban Biology teachers from failing students who argue that humans co-existed with dinosaurs. The state legislator’s committee in charge of education standards has approved a law that would forbid teachers from penalizing students who argue against widely accepted scientific theories, such as evolution and climate change.

“I proposed this bill because there are teachers and students who may be afraid of going against what they see in their textbooks,” said (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/oklahoma-hr1674-science-evolution-climate-change) Republican State Representative Gus Blackwell who sponsored the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, which can now go the state legislature for a vote.

Students are not exempt from being tested on textbook material, “but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories,” reads the bill [PDF (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20INT/hB/HB1674%20INT.PDF)].

Not everyone is ecstatic about the bill, however. “An extremely high percentage of scientists will tell you that evolution doesn’t have scientific weaknesses,” said (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/oklahoma-hr1674-science-evolution-climate-change) education director of the National Center for Science Education, Eric Meikle, to Mother Jones. “If every teacher, parent, and school board can decide what to teach on their own, you’re going to have chaos. You can’t deluge kids with every theory that’s ever been considered since the beginning of time.”

[KantoSooner]

I think that the problem is self resolving. If a person wanted to argue against the notion that humans and dinosaurs, for instance existed millions of years apart, they could do so. They would have to explain away the accumulated evidence of the last 150 years of archeology, geology, genetics, physics and biology. That might be a heavy burden for a high school student, but it would be available to them if they chose that course.

Miind you, failure to support their argument adequately, with the usual rigor of reproducibility and independent varifiability required of any scientific position would, of course, result in a failing grade; but they'd have the right to hold to their position.

In 1300 China was so far ahead of the rest of the world that there was, quite literally, nothing for them to gain by contact with the rest of the world. Consider this: at an earlier time when Britons were painting themselves blue with woad and dancing naked around oak trees, the Chinese capitol was beset with toilet paper shortage protests. (this is known because it was reported in the Chinese newspapers of the times of which there are extant copies in their national archives.)

And then the priests and eunuchs gained control and, under the banner of 'Cleanse the Nation, Back to Tradition!' (sound familiar?), China turned inwards, slowly forgetting and relinquishing their scientific accomplishments just at the moment that the West was throwing off the dead hand of cant, superstition and dogma.

By the time the West came calling for earnest, the Chinese had long forbidden themselves any blue water naval expeditions. European sailing vessels (which were still less than 1/4 the size of the imperial treasure ships of Admiral Cheng He's fleet four centuries earlier) were identified as 'Dragons, floating on clouds' by coastal guard posts. And steam ships were accepted as 'proof' that these sightings were of 'dragons' off the coast.

We play for high stakes when we sit back and watch febrile nincompoops like Blackwell attempt to retard the minds of the young.

[okie52]

This is why I brought this up weeks ago... Here is Oklahoma trying to do the same thing. http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/22/making-it-illegal-to-fail-science-students-who-argue-humans-co-existed-with-dinosaurs/

The Mother Jones article was an excellent example of PC hysteria that evidently impairs reading comprehension.


In biology class, public school students can't generally argue that dinosaurs and people ran around Earth at the same time, at least not without risking a big fat F. But that could soon change for kids in Oklahoma: On Tuesday, the Oklahoma Common Education committee is expected to consider a House bill that would forbid teachers from penalizing students who turn in papers attempting to debunk almost universally accepted scientific theories such as biological evolution and anthropogenic (human-driven) climate change.

Gus Blackwell, the Republican state representative who introduced the bill, insists that his legislation has nothing to do with religion; it simply encourages scientific exploration. "I proposed this bill because there are teachers and students who may be afraid of going against what they see in their textbooks," says Blackwell, who previously spent 20 years working for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. "A student has the freedom to write a paper that points out that highly complex life may not be explained by chance mutations."

These bills are "a kind of code for people who are opposed to teaching climate change and evolution."
Stated another way, students could make untestable, faith-based claims in science classes without fear of receiving a poor mark.

HB1674 is the latest in an ongoing series of "academic freedom" bills aimed at watering down the teaching of science on highly charged topics. Instead of requiring that teachers and textbooks include creationism—see the bill proposed by Missouri state Rep. Rick Brattin—HB1674's crafters say it merely encourages teachers and students to question, as the bill puts it, the "scientific strengths and weaknesses" of topics that "cause controversy," including "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

Eric Meikle, education project director at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Oakland, California, says Oklahoma has proposed more anti-evolution legislation than any other state, introducing 8 bills with "academic freedom" language since 2004 (none have yet to pass.) "The problem with these bills is that they're so open-ended; it's a kind of code for people who are opposed to teaching climate change and evolution," Meikle says.

HB1674 goes further than a companion bill under consideration in the state Senate by explicitly protecting students, teachers, and schools from being penalized for subscribing to alternative theories. It does, however, say that children may still be tested on widely accepted theories such as anthropogenic climate change. "Students can't say because I don't believe in this, I don't want to learn it," says Blackwell. "They have to learn it in order to look at the weaknesses."

"An extremely high percentage of scientists will tell you that evolution doesn't have scientific weaknesses," says the NCSE's Meikle. "If every teacher, parent, and school board can decide what to teach on their own, you're going to have chaos. You can't deluge kids with every theory that's ever been considered since the beginning of time."

So APG is accepted as fact and to debate it is scientific heresy? The bill specifically states:



D. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to exempt students from learning, understanding and being tested on curriculum as prescribed by state and local education standards.

E. The provisions of the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act shall only protect the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. The intent of the provisions of this act is to create an environment in which both the teacher and students can openly and objectively discuss the facts and observations of science, and the assumptions that underlie their interpretation.

The old fallback to the use of the word "code" for when a PC nut can't apply anything factual to support their position.

So a student being tested on his/her knowledge of evolution and/or APG according to the schools curriculum and being graded based on that knowledge isn't evidently enough for a professor like Meikle or Mother Jones...they have to "believe" in it too. What do they want...some kind of oath? The fact that APG is even mentioned as "fact" shows the agenda of the article and the professor. I happen to believe in APG although I have no idea what actual impact man is having nor does anyone else. But for some to declare it as a fact discredits the science which they declare they are trying to protect.

The irony for a PC regurgitator like mother jones is that APG has become religion in its own right and one they will fight to preserve regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Unfortunately, public shools have done an excellent job of retarding the minds of the young without the likes of Blackwell intervening.

[Fraggle145]

So APG is accepted as fact and to debate it is scientific heresy?

In the scientific community right now I would argue that yes indeed APG is accepted as fact. Debating it isnt scientific heresy by any means, but I would guess it would be very difficult to find an esteemed climate scientist to take the other side.


So a student being tested on his/her knowledge of evolution and/or APG according to the schools curriculum and being graded based on that knowledge isn't evidently enough for a professor like Meikle or Mother Jones...they have to "believe" in it too. What do they want...some kind of oath? The fact that APG is even mentioned as "fact" shows the agenda of the article and the professor. I happen to believe in APG although I have no idea what actual impact man is having nor does anyone else. But for some to declare it as a fact discredits the science which they declare they are trying to protect.

I would say the problem is that bills like these are a slippery slope. Some student will be graded on their knowledge and upon receiving a poor grade the teacher will be made out to be on a witch hunt against god (or something to that effect). They will then be put through the ringer, etc, etc, etc... Secondarily I would argue that due to the poor state of our education system (especially in OK) where standards are often not up to par in both curriculum and teachers that many science teachers possibly wouldnt have have the ability to judge/grade/respond to a critique of evolutionary theory adequately. Especially since it isnt outlined in our curriculum adequately.

And apparently I am not the only one who thinks this way...

Unfortunately, public shools have done an excellent job of retarding the minds of the young without the likes of Blackwell intervening.


The irony for a PC regurgitator like mother jones is that APG has become religion in its own right and one they will fight to preserve regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

I just grabbed the headline, I didnt think the source really mattered as it was more the proposed bill that I was concerned about. I would argue though that APG isnt religion, it is just the currently accepted state of knowledge.

[FaninAma]

Kanto, I wouldn't be suprised at all to see what happened in China happen here except I predict it will happen in the name of progressive "fairness".

When technology and knowledge advance at such the rapid rate it has in the last half century a lot of people began to feel displaced and threatened. In fact, I think a lot of the economic turmoil we are experiencing today can be traced back to the transitioning of our country from an industrial/manufacturing based economy to a technology based economy.

As this transition progresses there will be an obvious inequality among the citizenry in terms of being able to adapt to the transition. These inequalities will be manifested in primarily economic terms :the expanding income gap, expanding education gap and the increasing poverty rates to name a few.

My contention is that those being left behind will naturally strike out at those who are making the transition more successfully by turning to the federal government to address the inequalities and in doing so they will elect government represetatives that promise to correct the economic inequalities even though the economic disparities are just symptoms of the real underlying problems.

These government attempts to correct the economic inequalities will in fact only exacerbate the problems by encouraging dependence of the displaced on government monetary handouts instead of requiring assistance to be in the form of requiring individuals to upgrade their skills in a way that would allow them to more successfully make the changes to adapt to the new economy.

Additionally, intact family units are imperative in helping individuals combine resources and talents which in turn assists in making the needed transitions in skills and education level to compete in new more competitive labor and skills market. Once again, government programs have led directly to the breakdown of this basic societal unit responsible for financial and emotional support during difficult times and replaced it with a dependence on monetary handouts that do little in helping individuals gain the necessary skills and personal stability to cope with the changes.

So, as government continues to misplace resources in an attempt to correct the symtpom of the actual problem they actually continue to exacerbate the inequalities caused by the economic transition leading to the consequences we are seeing today....lowered academic acheivement, increasing poverty and growing income distribution gaps.

[okie52]

In the scientific community right now I would argue that yes indeed APG is accepted as fact. Debating it isnt scientific heresy by any means, but I would guess it would be very difficult to find an esteemed climate scientist to take the other side.





I would say the problem is that bills like these are a slippery slope. Some student will be graded on their knowledge and upon receiving a poor grade the teacher will be made out to be on a witch hunt against god (or something to that effect). They will then be put through the ringer, etc, etc, etc... Secondarily I would argue that due to the poor state of our education system (especially in OK) where standards are often not up to par in both curriculum and teachers that many science teachers possibly wouldnt have have the ability to judge/grade/respond to a critique of evolutionary theory adequately. Especially since it isnt outlined in our curriculum adequately.

And apparently I am not the only one who thinks this way...




I just grabbed the headline, I didnt think the source really mattered as it was more the proposed bill that I was concerned about. I would argue though that APG isnt religion, it is just the currently accepted state of knowledge.

Hell I thought there was still plenty of debate as to whether or not we were having global warming...much less that it was APG. Just 40 years ago we had scientists advancing "global cooling". I would agree that the majority of "climate scientists" would believe in APG although that is something of a self sustaining position...but it is certainly not a fact beyond debate which appears to be the point of Meikle and Mother Jones.

I have no problem with a science teacher stating that a majority of scientists believe in global warming or even APG. That would be accurate.

The law proposed states specifically that the student is to be judged on his/her knowledge of the curriculum and really doesn't have an out of "God did it" to avoid learning the course material. Whether at student chooses to believe the theory really shouldn't matter. Now we have to worry about "code" words to appease certain PC groups that can't find facts to support their position... the very thing they rail about with creationists.

If APG is above debate it has become a religion which is evidently where some people believe it to be.

[KantoSooner]

Bourbon Street, I'm on record as being vehemently opposed to the teachers' union, but, honestly, our educational woes in Oklahoma and in the country as a whole are not limited to some number of 'bad' teachers. Parents, too, need to step up and take their share of the blame. Kids are not driven to do homework and are not taught to respect and take education seriously. And that makes the jobs of teachers something that requires superhumans to do well.

We can go on about teaching political correctness all day long, but we still have to admit that teaching about it is better than making everything a matter of opinion and then throwing our hands up as though it's all relative.

[KantoSooner]

Fanin,
I think you're largely correct as to the economic transition, but I think it's even larger. Prior to WWI, almost 25% of our population lived 'on the farm' in one sense or another. Now less than 4% do. So, we've got massive transitions going on, with attendant shifts in gender roles (the loss of manual labor jobs has arguably stripped lower educated males of much of a role in anything important and certainly of the ability to support a family).

And, anytime you have such stresses on any system, you'll have counter-reactions. So far, the historical (and rather odd, really) association of the 'progressives' with the left and modernism, has prevented a joining of forces between the official working classes and various religious organizations. We can see the joy that brings when we look at the Russian political landscape and particularly Zherinovsky, a sort of latter day Peronist or Franco Facist.

It's my stance that those of us who cherish the civil liberties and freedoms that form the true core of the American experiment need to stand fast against those who would attempt to inject any form of tribalism into the society. Enough will sneak in through the windows even if we bar the doors. In science classes we should, threrefore, teach science; and at root that means the scientific method. If some young genius can use the scientific method to debunk the words of his or her teacher, more power to them. Meantime, faith can safely be left to the churches. Here in my town of around 40,000, we have over 80 houses of worship. And only one highschool. It would not appear that religious belief is under siege by the forces of Mother Jones.

[Fraggle145]

I have no problem with a science teacher stating that a majority of scientists believe in global warming or even APG. That would be accurate.

The law proposed states specifically that the student is to be judged on his/her knowledge of the curriculum and really doesn't have an out of "God did it" to avoid learning the course material. Whether at student chooses to believe the theory really shouldn't matter. Now we have to worry about "code" words to appease certain PC groups that can't find facts to support their position... the very thing they rail about with creationists.

If APG is above debate it has become a religion which is evidently where some people believe it to be.

The first sentence there is all I was saying about APG. BTW, What do you really mean by APG? I thought it menat Anthropogenic Climate Change, but then I realized the initials didnt add up... Anyway.

I agree that is what the law states, but you and I both know that isnt what it means. And you know that as soon as little Johnny gets an F some teacher or teachers are going to get it in the ***.

[okie52]

The first sentence there is all I was saying about APG. BTW, What do you really mean by APG? I thought it menat Anthropogenic Climate Change, but then I realized the initials didnt add up... Anyway.

I agree that is what the law states, but you and I both know that isnt what it means. And you know that as soon as little Johnny gets an F some teacher or teachers are going to get it in the ***.

APG is the abbreviation i have seen used for anthropogenic climate change. You're right...it doesn't really add up.

I assume little Johnny's teacher could get in hot water now if she failed him for believing in
creationism or something other than APG. I don't see this bill changing that anymore than it will excuse a student for not being able to properly state the course curriculum...which I fully support.

[Fraggle145]

APG is the abbreviation i have seen used for anthropogenic climate change. You're right...it doesn't really add up.

I assume little Johnny's teacher could get in hot water now if she failed him for believing in
creationism or something other than APG. I don't see this bill changing that anymore than it will excuse a student for not being able to properly state the course curriculum...which I fully support.

You know that it could be made to look like the teacher had an agenda and that is why Johnny was failed, when in reality it was because he couldnt adequately support his position. It could cost that teacher their job and more if they tried to fight it. And it gives little Johnny the advantage vs. The teacher who should be the person with authority (at least that is one of the reasons we hire them). It changes the burden of proof.

Currently the teacher could just as easily be fired for failing someone just for their beliefs. So why do we need this law? Its useless. There are more important things... For example fix my damn roads.

I'm confused though by stating it will excuse a student for not being able to properly state the course curriculum - does that mean they shouldnt be able to learn the facts as they are taught? or are you saying that you disagree with the curriculum as it is now? or are you saying the student should be required to understand the curriculum before they attempt to refute it in one way or another?

[okie52]

You know that it could be made to look like the teacher had an agenda and that is why Johnny was failed, when in reality it was because he couldnt adequately support his position. It could cost that teacher their job and more if they tried to fight it. And it gives little Johnny the advantage vs. The teacher who should be the person with authority (at least that is one of the reasons we hire them). It changes the burden of proof.

Currently the teacher could just as easily be fired for failing someone just for their beliefs. So why do we need this law? Its useless. There are more important things... For example fix my damn roads.

I'm confused though by stating it will excuse a student for not being able to properly state the course curriculum - does that mean they shouldnt be able to learn the facts as they are taught? or are you saying that you disagree with the curriculum as it is now? or are you saying the student should be required to understand the curriculum before they attempt to refute it in one way or another?

I'm saying the student should be able to recite what the curriculum requires to any theories or scientific data. Whether the student agrees with it shouldn't matter nor should it be held against him by a teacher that has an agenda.

I don't know if the bill accomplishes anything but I do get a kick out of the angst it seems to cause some. If CO2 is indeed the culprit of GW or AGW then I certainly believe man adds to the problem...I just don't think science has any idea at this point whether man adds significantly to the problem. Certainly a reasonable debate could be made against it but this seems to be stepping on some toes evidently in the science classroom community.

[Fraggle145]

I'm saying the student should be able to recite what the curriculum requires to any theories or scientific data. Whether the student agrees with it shouldn't matter nor should it be held against him by a teacher that has an agenda.

I don't know if the bill accomplishes anything but I do get a kick out of the angst it seems to cause some. If CO2 is indeed the culprit of GW or AGW then I certainly believe man adds to the problem...I just don't think science has any idea at this point whether man adds significantly to the problem. Certainly a reasonable debate could be made against it but this seems to be stepping on some toes evidently in the science classroom community.

I get ya. I guess I am saying is what the student believes or doesnt believe is irrelevant. Why does it need to be in an assignment? So little Johnny (or little Johnny's parents) can feel better? If I am grading your assignment IDGAS what you believe, but I certainly dont want to have to sift through irrelevant rubbish to be able to figure out if you have grasped the material that I am trying to teach you.

To me the bill is much more about Evolution than AGW. Or at least that is the part I am more concerned about. Americans havent been able to get hip to an idea that was first put forth in the 1850s? My expectations are pretty low for us as a society grasping anything scientific that has its formative thoughts starting as recent as the mid to late 1970s.

[okie52]

I get ya. I guess I am saying is what the student believes or doesnt believe is irrelevant. Why does it need to be in an assignment? So little Johnny (or little Johnny's parents) can feel better? If I am grading your assignment IDGAS what you believe, but I certainly dont want to have to sift through irrelevant rubbish to be able to figure out if you have grasped the material that I am trying to teach you.

To me the bill is much more about Evolution than AGW. Or at least that is the part I am more concerned about. Americans havent been able to get hip to an idea that was first put forth in the 1850s? My expectations are pretty low for us as a society grasping anything scientific that has its formative thoughts starting as recent as the mid to late 1970s.


Hopefully (and its been a very long time since I have been in a classroom) when a theory is introduced and/or discussed it's strengths and weaknesses are part of the conversation. One of my college geology professors merely mentioned that a weakness of evolution was the use of carbon dating (this was in 1970). That was about it. Class time wouldn't have allowed for much more discussion than that. The historical geology book simply stated that any discussion of the supernatural was excluded from the text (or something to that effect). I was fine with that. I wouldn't think a student would necessarily be a asked "what do you believe" rather than "state the concept of Darwin's theory".

For me the AGW issue was what caught my eye since I don't consider it's place in science to be nearly as advanced/reviewed/studied as evolution yet it was being discussed as though it was on an equal footing. That is what concerned me.

[C&CDean]

Guys, it don't matter. Little Johnny ain't listening and couldn't give a ****. Sad, but true.

[okie52]

Guys, it don't matter. Little Johnny ain't listening and couldn't give a ****. Sad, but true.

Little Johnny is fun to have in the classroom because he knows a lot of jokes.

[olevetonahill]

Guys, it don't matter. Little Johnny ain't listening and couldn't give a ****. Sad, but true.


Little Johnny is fun to have in the classroom because he knows a lot of jokes.

A rat, teacher. A Big ****in RAT

[KantoSooner]

Guys, it don't matter. Little Johnny ain't listening and couldn't give a ****. Sad, but true.

This is often put forward as a reason to be calm about our schools. Basically, 'Our kids are ****heads anyway, what does it matter what they're taught?'

But, most of the really genius level people in our society are products of middle class homes who attended public schools (at least through high school). I think it's worthwhile to ask what made them different. Same teachers. Same schools. Maybe it was having parents who gave a damn about learning? At least to the extent that they expressed respect for learning and teachers, and expected the same from their kids?

What we need is a cultural shift in which we start venerating teachers (we don't need to start paying astronomical salaries, just give them respect - it goes a long way) and admiring people who know things. Things without apparent application to daily tasks, even. I was surprised by how few people I spoke with regarding the recent Oscar nominated 'Anna Karennina' had actually read the book. How can they possibly appreciate whether the movie was at all loyal to the text if they've never read it? And why would anyone want to deny themselves the joy of reading what's been called the world's greatest novel?

We're not going to force this sort of culture shift on our nation from above. It can not be legislated. But, if each one of us would make an effort, even a small one, every day, we could make a difference.

[Fraggle145]

What we need is a cultural shift in which we start venerating teachers (we don't need to start paying astronomical salaries, just give them respect - it goes a long way) and admiring people who know things. Things without apparent application to daily tasks, even. I was surprised by how few people I spoke with regarding the recent Oscar nominated 'Anna Karennina' had actually read the book. How can they possibly appreciate whether the movie was at all loyal to the text if they've never read it? And why would anyone want to deny themselves the joy of reading what's been called the world's greatest novel?

We're not going to force this sort of culture shift on our nation from above. It can not be legislated. But, if each one of us would make an effort, even a small one, every day, we could make a difference.

I agree respect goes a long way, but I think what goes a longer way are higher standards and as a result of that to get people that qualify with higher standards you have to pay more. Roughly half of the teachers at my high school and junior high school currently were some of the dumbest people from my high school graduating class +/- a few years. They are teachers because it isnt hard to qualify. They shouldnt be teachers. They never showed a good work ethic or a hunger for knowledge growing up... I know people change, but they dont change that much.

[KantoSooner]

Okay, increase teacher pay. I'm for it. But even with higher pay, you won't attract the best and brightest unless the job carries a bit more cachet than it does today.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I agree respect goes a long way, but I think what goes a longer way are higher standards and as a result of that to get people that qualify with higher standards you have to pay more what government jobs would you recommend be cut in pay, in order to pay for the increases to the teachers?

[KantoSooner]

G-14's and above. By about 20%. Haven't yet met one who deserved the package they've got.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

G-14's and above. By about 20%. Haven't yet met one who deserved the package they've got.I understand that 1 in 5 federal govt. jobs pay at least $100K!!!


Since teachers' jobs are not federal govt., cuts would need to be made at the appropriate level.

[KantoSooner]

From the little I"ve seen, it would appear that admin is bloated in this state's school system. (Admin is bloated in almost every organization I've ever seen, essentially the best thing you can do, anywhere, is roll a hand grenade into whatever the 'Head Office' analogue is. Push all decision making as far down the pyramid as possible. Trust your people or fire them.)

So, yeah. Get rid of anyone making over $100K who can not explain, in pretty cogent terms, in 30 seconds or less, precisely what his/her function/worth is to the organization.

It's not harsh, it creates focus. And it saves money for the functional part of your enterprise.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

From the little I"ve seen, it would appear that admin is bloated in this state's school system. (Admin is bloated in almost every organization I've ever seen, essentially the best thing you can do, anywhere, is roll a hand grenade into whatever the 'Head Office' analogue is. Push all decision making as far down the pyramid as possible. Trust your people or fire them.)

So, yeah. Get rid of anyone making over $100K who can not explain, in pretty cogent terms, in 30 seconds or less, precisely what his/her function/worth is to the organization.

It's not harsh, it creates focus. And it saves money for the functional part of your enterprise.Heh, ROTSA RUCK!WITH THAT!

[KantoSooner]

It's not goiing to happen. Or at least not that cleanly, but the principal holds: why should administrators make comfortable or better compensation if teachers are in genteel poverty?

[KantoSooner]

It's also the way Jobs ran Apple. So much so that people would avoid the elevators and take the stairs. When Jobs was told of this and urged to lighten up, he commented that at least he was contributing to physical fitness.

He might have been a hippy, but he was a different sort of hippy.

[Fraggle145]

Okay, increase teacher pay. I'm for it. But even with higher pay, you won't attract the best and brightest unless the job carries a bit more cachet than it does today.

Right you have to increase standards as well. With an increase in standards comes an increase in respect. How about requiring all teachers to obtain a masters in their chosen field (i.e., not teaching) to start?

[Fraggle145]

what government jobs would you recommend be cut in pay, in order to pay for the increases to the teachers?

I like Kanto's idea... Too bad it wouldnt work. Administration in just about any profession are usually a bunch of self-important *******s who forgot the whole reason why they got there.

[yermom]

From the little I"ve seen, it would appear that admin is bloated in this state's school system. (Admin is bloated in almost every organization I've ever seen, essentially the best thing you can do, anywhere, is roll a hand grenade into whatever the 'Head Office' analogue is. Push all decision making as far down the pyramid as possible. Trust your people or fire them.)

So, yeah. Get rid of anyone making over $100K who can not explain, in pretty cogent terms, in 30 seconds or less, precisely what his/her function/worth is to the organization.

It's not harsh, it creates focus. And it saves money for the functional part of your enterprise.

what exactly would you say that you do here?

[Fraggle145]

what exactly would you say that you do here?

http://www.tribbleagency.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/bobs.jpg

[okie52]

http://www.tribbleagency.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/bobs.jpg

LOL