Please note that new user registrations disabled at this time.

Georgia Takes on 'Evolution'

Anything goes... just keep it clean.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

@Curdis, many of the facts you post have nothing to do with the question I asked, concerning the curtailment or elimination of teaching evolution in states. For example, the "Balanced Treatment Act" of Louisiana which you emphasize was about mounting opposition to a single version of evolution being offered as fact in school texts. And the Act was proposed, not only by some Christian groups, but by spokespersons for Judaism and Islam. It emphasized that Darwinian evolution had to be taught as a theory, alongside other theories, presented without specific religious bias. I'm not arguing for this so-called "balanced approach," which is scientifically wrong, but with respect, it doesn't seem to me an attempt to stop the teaching of Darwinianism. I also see changes to a textbook from "millions of years ago" to "some scientists say millions of years ago" as part of this same attempt. It doesn't remove evolution from anything. (I'm surprised that Scayde hasn't posted in this thread, come to think of it.) I see only one instance in your list where the teaching of evolution was curtailed in a state over the last 75+ years. And I honestly don't see any determined campaign at work, here, unlike the instances of absolutely whitewashed history books.

Why, when anybody is looking to point out censorship and crazed loons of the far right, do they start dissing the United States? Granted, we have our jokers, and one of 'em is in the White House right now. But instead of screaming, "Ooooo, bad Americans, religious myth surplanting science in schools!" how about looking at your own history books and first deciding whether your national myths aren't surplanting actual history in your schools? Hell, if you want deliberate campaigns trying to fill kids' minds with garbage, it's all there, noted down: detailed movements that dramatically resist in the courts and legislatures all attempt to reform history texts in many countries to resemble reality. Fresh, successful attempts to shape and distort very recent history to meet the needs of patriotic national legend. How about the horrors of the Japanese military in WWII? The monumental failures of British Intelligence in the 20th century? The slaughter of French Jews by French Christians on a massive scale, during WWII?

But no: America is the worst, because it must be. Pot, meet kettle. How dark are you, today?

PS: Sorry if the above comes off ill-tempered, and I apologize if I've offended any sensibilities. :) But while I oppose the silliness of Creationism, I also think there are a lot worse things going on in school curricula that are completely neglected because they're much harder fights to win. Nobody wants to think of them. And because it's ever sooooo easy to pick on the US in a generic, obvious fashion, despite the presence of extremists in each of our countries.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Curdis
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: The edge of reality
Contact:

Post by Curdis »

Originally posted by fable
@Curdis, many of the facts you post have nothing to do with the question I asked, concerning the curtailment or elimination of teaching evolution in states. *snip*

But no: America is the worst, because it must be. Pot, meet kettle. How dark are you, today?
You are really splitting hairs here. In every example I listed the teaching of Evolution had been curtailed or prohibitied in some way in a State in the USA, which is what YOU asked me to back up.

Re concerted campaign - What of the Scientific American Article I referred you to? Ever hear of the CSF?

I didn't once say the USA was the great demon. I have gone to some length to mention the situation in other countries (even though the thread is on Georgia, USA). I guess we are all just hopelessly fallable human beings after all. - Curdis.

P.S. Like the new sig?
The warlord sig of 's' - word

Making a reappearance for those who have a sig even longer :rolleyes:

[quote="Dilbert]That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard[/quote]

[quote=Waverly]You all suck donkeys[/quote]

[quote={deleted after legal threats}]I am so not a drama queen![/quote"]

:)

:mad:

:cool:

:mischief:

:angel:

:devil:

:angry:

Repent

For
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

You are really splitting hairs here. In every example I listed the teaching of Evolution had been curtailed or prohibitied in some way in a State in the USA, which is what YOU asked me to back up.

But evolution continued to be taught the same extent in Arkansas and Louisiana. Attempts had to be made to teach other "theories," as well. Obviously, we aren't going to agree on this, since I don't see myself as splitting hairs, here.

Re concerted campaign - What of the Scientific American Article I referred you to? Ever hear of the CSF?

You gave me a single sentence quoted from an article that includes a claim. I am not familiar with the article, nor do I understand the quote as having any relevance to state-banned evolutionary teaching.

I didn't once say the USA was the great demon.

No, what you said was "The last superpower prepares it's children for nuclear responsible world governance by insulting their intellect and preaching ignorance." As though the greatest economic powerhouse in the world, Japan, was preaching learning the lessons of one's past to prepare for the future--neh? Or as though China isn't a superpower? I detest the American public school system, but I would never single it out for preaching any more ignorance than any other nation--and a lot less than some very powerful ones, including a certain superpower that is systematically destroying the culture and people of Tibet.

Basta. I'm getting moody, and probably drinking too much caffeine. I'll retreat to lurk status, here. :)
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 10:37 am
Location: Hiding from Extinction
Contact:

Post by Grendel »

Testy is the word I would use. And to think that we all seem to agree the same point that curtailment of knowledge is a bad thing.

I did not read Curdis's documentation (thanks for that) or commentary as an attack on the USA. Hell, I live in the South and have not yet been offended by this discussion. The time line as laid out by Curdis does not appear to directly correlate with the periodic election year politics BTW. I contend that whenever this issue raises it's ugly head it needs to be actively opposed rather that passively ignored.

Aak. Now I'm getting all snarly too. Off to lurk and spam in anther thread..
Ex-Member, Clan of One
Evil Gnome Cult
User avatar
VoodooDali
Posts: 1992
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Spanking Witch King
Contact:

Post by VoodooDali »

You know the odd thing is that it makes me think the whole issue is a good argument for private schools. I went to a private school and the teachers were free to pick out their own textbooks, etc. For example, I was assigned to read Jean Genet in my senior year - not an uncontroversial author!

I'm not really advocating dismantling the public school system, though!!!

I just hope these creationists continue to home-school and send their kids to christian schools so that they continue on their downward spiral into complete ignorance. I also hope they stay away from places like NYC and stay in their little redneck towns and listen to Toby Keith until their brains explode. At least we'll know where they are, and hopefully it will not be near me.

Geez - now I'm testy! I think Fable has some sort of contagious disease!

hands Fable a pair of rubber gloves and a surgical mask
“I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.” - Edgar Allen Poe
User avatar
Curdis
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: The edge of reality
Contact:

Post by Curdis »

Thanks Grendel and VD, I though I was going a bit crazy there.

Fable (If your still lurking) my apologies once again if I have in anyway upset you.

If there is any contagious disease I fear it is I not Fable who carries it (The threads only get nasty after I do some research).

I must not discuss religion, evolution, or philosophy on these forumsI must not discuss religion, evolution, or philosophy on these forumsI must not discuss religion, evolution, or philosophy on these forumsI must not discuss religion, evolution, or philosophy on these forumsI must not discuss religion, evolution, or philosophy on these forumsI must not discuss religion, evolution, or philosophy on these forumsI must not discuss religion, evolution, or philosophy on these forumsI must not discuss religion, evolution, or philosophy on these forumsI must not discuss religion, evolution, or philosophy on these forumsI must not discuss religion, evolution, or philosophy on these forumsI must not discuss religion, evolution, or philosophy on these forums
The warlord sig of 's' - word

Making a reappearance for those who have a sig even longer :rolleyes:

[quote="Dilbert]That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard[/quote]

[quote=Waverly]You all suck donkeys[/quote]

[quote={deleted after legal threats}]I am so not a drama queen![/quote"]

:)

:mad:

:cool:

:mischief:

:angel:

:devil:

:angry:

Repent

For
User avatar
VoodooDali
Posts: 1992
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Spanking Witch King
Contact:

Post by VoodooDali »

Ya Curdis, I had quite a rant there myself...

I think the real threat to the teaching of evolution in schools is attempts to set precedents in the courts. If the creationists can find some way to get the higher level courts to rule in their favor, then it won't matter what the vast majority of the public wants. I think they attempt to influence school boards at the same time, but the results have not been in their favor once the general public gets wind of it. Their only hope is to do lawsuits and set precedents.

I just took a course in college in evolutionary theory and a lot of people on this board have misconceptions. I would love to put up a thread on that - but between this thread and the one on virtual evolution, I'm afraid no one would really look at it for the time being. So, I'll save that for a rainy day.
“I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.” - Edgar Allen Poe
User avatar
Scayde
Posts: 8739
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 1:05 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Scayde »

Originally posted by VoodooDali
...
re; Teaching creationism or Intelligent Design

The above strategies also have a more profound impact on science education which goes beyond biology. All of them communicate the idea that there is something lacking or something wrong with evolutionary theory, an idea which is not actually true from a scientific standpoint. What this means, then, is that students can develop very mistaken beliefs about the nature of science, the scientific method, and how scientific research is used. This cheats students out of the proper science education which they deserve.



I don't think this is such a bad thing...while I do not cary a banner for teaching 'creationism' in school, I do feel it is wrong to treat one theary as gold standard and the other as fairy tail. I for one do happen to believe that there was and reamains an indefinable inteligence which premiates and directs both anabolic and catabolic fources in the univers. In no way does this hinder my ability to grasp or accept the theory of evolution. I think the matter is best handled when the emphasis remains on the fact that these are all 'theories' and unlike the 'laws' of science, are still under investigation. It has become a battle between faith and science which need not be there. Just as we can not KNOW the truth about the origins of God/Gods..at this point we do not KNOW the origin of life. I feel the healthiest and most ballanced perspective is to accept the fact that we do not know, entertain all possibilities, and not close our minds before the proof is in. To do that would be a disservice to science as well as spirituality..not to mention the natural curiosity of children which may impact them to one day study in this field to find the keys to unlocking the mystery.

Scayde Moody
(Pronounced Shayde)

The virtue of self sacrifice is the lie perpetuated by the weak to enslave the strong
User avatar
Scayde
Posts: 8739
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 1:05 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Scayde »

Originally posted by fable
@Curdis, many of the facts you post have nothing to do with the question I asked, concerning the curtailment or elimination of teaching evolution in states. For example, the "Balanced Treatment Act" of Louisiana which you emphasize was about mounting opposition to a single version of evolution being offered as fact in school texts. And the Act was proposed, not only by some Christian groups, but by spokespersons for Judaism and Islam. It emphasized that Darwinian evolution had to be taught as a theory, alongside other theories, presented without specific religious bias. I'm not arguing for this so-called "balanced approach," which is scientifically wrong, but with respect, it doesn't seem to me an attempt to stop the teaching of Darwinianism. I also see changes to a textbook from "millions of years ago" to "some scientists say millions of years ago" as part of this same attempt. It doesn't remove evolution from anything. (I'm surprised that Scayde hasn't posted in this thread, come to think of it.) I see only one instance in your list where the teaching of evolution was curtailed in a state over the last 75+ years. And I honestly don't see any determined campaign at work, here, unlike the instances of absolutely whitewashed history books.

......


I did, on the forst page, and just did again ;)


BTW..I am a proponent of the ballanced approach...and changing the text from "millions of years ago" to "some scientists say millions of years ago" in no way dilutes scientific theory, but is a simple statement of fact, as there are many scietnist who devote their carreers to shoring up the theories they favour..such as evolution,creation, or inteligent selection/creation not all of them agree..and it is wrong IMO to teach one theory as irrefutable before ALL the cards are on the table ;)

Scayde Moody
(Pronounced Shayde)

The virtue of self sacrifice is the lie perpetuated by the weak to enslave the strong
User avatar
VoodooDali
Posts: 1992
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Spanking Witch King
Contact:

Post by VoodooDali »

Scayde, in common English, a theory is like a guess. But in science, it's as close to fact as you get. Unlike the creationists, scientists never claim to have absolute truth. A superior and well-supported hypothesis will be regarded as a theory. A theory that has withstood the test of time and the collection of new data is about as close as we can get to a scientific fact. An example is the heliocentric solar system. At one time, it was a mere hypothesis. Although the notion that the planets revolve around the sun *is* still formally just a well-supported theory, validated by many independent lines of evidence, it is now widely regarded as scientific "fact." Nobody has ever directly observed an electron, stellar fusion, radiowaves, entropy, or the earth circling the Sun, yet these are all scientific facts. As Stephen J. Gould has said, a scientific fact is not "absolute certainty," but simply a theory that has been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." This is certainly true of evolutionary theory.

In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
That life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
That life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
That species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
That natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas.

Plus, if "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these.

Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains and predicts nothing, it is useless in the science classroom.


Also, I think you are confusing abiogenesis with evolution.

Evolution is a process that results in inherited changes in a population spread over many generations. That's basically all there is to it. Things like natural selection are mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

Abiogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time. The theory of evolution applies as long as life on this planet exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.

I would not have a problem with teachers tackling problems of how we came to exist, why we are here, etc in school...but those questions belong in a philosophy class or sunday school, not a biology class.


"A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can."
--Charles Darwin, on whether human reason could ever understand God.
“I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.” - Edgar Allen Poe
User avatar
Scayde
Posts: 8739
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 1:05 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Scayde »

Scientific Theory: a statement that postulates ordered relationships among natural phenomena.

Scientific fact: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)



Voo, With respect, there are scientific facts, and laws..that are not disputed...and I do understand the concept you are describing that at some point..certain theories, which have born out unrefuted over time to become accepted as 'fact'..that is very much part of what I am talking about ....Things wheich can not be proven..no matter how logically plausable..are still unprovable, and should be treated as such...doors should not be closed just because it is the highest probability. I am not argueing out of ignorance..It is simply that I feel it is important to remember there are possibilities out there that we can neither prove or disprove...the precise time and manner in which life originated is among them.


edit, and example which comes to mind : Einstein was a detractor of Newton when he showed that the Newtonian "Laws" of mechanics did not explain everything (wasn't that why quantum mechanics came into existence)? Just because Newtonian mechanics is "wrong" in some situations, does that mean it is useless? I don't think so!!

If certain aspects of evolutionary theory (e.g., natural selection, gradualism) has "detractors" (and I mean among people who are qualified to argue about it -- among biologists), does that mean natural selection (or the idea of biological evolution in general) is wrong? NO!! Scientific knowledge is strengthened by people questioning what is or has been accepted

Scayde Moody
(Pronounced Shayde)

The virtue of self sacrifice is the lie perpetuated by the weak to enslave the strong
User avatar
Lazarus
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: The Facility
Contact:

Post by Lazarus »

Um - back on the subject of the thread ... the term evolution is now AOK. Check out the witty post of Ms. Jane Galt on the subject.
A is A . . . but Siouxsie defies definition.

Lazarus' fun site o' the month: Daily Ablutions.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Tempest in a teapot: exactly my point. Sounds like the superintendent Cox made a classic misjudgement about the mood of the American voter--went far right in a cheap and obvious effort to secure easy reelection this year, and discovered that just because Dubya's hugging the fringe, the rest of the US isn't.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
InfiniteNature
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 8:51 am
Location: In the infinite abyss, between dreams and nightmar
Contact:

Post by InfiniteNature »

I am all for the teaching of Creationism in the schools, as long as you only teach the facts, I am of the opinion that the facts will not support it, they will support evolution which has a vaster amount of research to support it.

But as long as we are talking about differing ideas, and some say evolution is only a theory and intelligent design is also a theory(which gives a decidingly Christian interpretation), then we too must also include other 'theories' for closer scrutiny, we must include the Hindu models of creation, we must include the Native American creation models, we must teach the Wiccan creation, we must teach nearly every other model based on religion there is. Actually consider another version of intelligent design, some people believe aliens did it, not God, thus we have another quirk in this argument.

I mean to be fair if you are going to teach Creationism or different versions of it and since that is based on a Christian interpretation then you must also include other models. And again facts are not things taken from the Bible, facts are things you find in the fossil record, involve radioactive dating, and try and look at in a logical reasonable fashion.

By all means teach the stuff, I think the this model won't last long, but the people are right it should have its interpretation stated and put into the scientific arena scrutiny, but just the facts maam.
"In Germany, they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the homosexuals and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a homosexual. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me--but by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Pastor Martin Neimoller

Infinity is a fathomless gulf, into which all things vanish.

Marcus Aurelius (121-180) Roman Emperor and Philosopher

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.

Frodo has failed, Bush has the ring.
User avatar
Curdis
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: The edge of reality
Contact:

Post by Curdis »

Originally posted by fable
Tempest in a teapot: exactly my point. *snip*
Good thing most of us keeped our GB SYM powder dry for the real fight that lies ahead then!
NOTE:- This is mockery, as people have made mistakes in the past, when I actually AM mocking something it will carry this message to point this out.

Nice lurking there.
NOTE:- This is mockery, as people have made mistakes in the past, when I actually AM mocking something it will carry this message to point this out.

Seeing as you have decided to regrace the thread with your presence. I have some issues with you.

1/ Quoting out of context. The quote you lifted to 'prove' your false claim was from before I explicitly said that demonising America was NOT my intention and in a thread explicitly about Georgia, USA.

2/Calling me out. Saying 'I can't think of one' is either a statement of your interest in having evidence presented or a statement saying that you are of the opinion that I am lying and you know better. When presented with the evidence; if the first was true, an appropriate response would be:- I was not aware of that (or even, I hadn't thought that was relevant but) ....' Even if you then went on to disagree with the evidence in some way. To equivocate about the relevence and accuracy of the evidence from the get go and then to gag the debate by saying you've had enough is appalling. To me this is evidence that it was in fact you saying 'your lying and I know better'. I was not lying and I don't like being called a liar. Argue the evidence, once you have actually looked into it, but don't dismiss it. On the basis of your being upset and withdrawing I apologised. I now specifically recant that apology, which, while reentering to claim some sort of victory, you did not acknowledge.

3/Someone actually had to oppose this proposal. If everyone calmly rolled over when this outrageous proposal was made it would be in place now. I'm certain the people who did the hard yards had better things to do with their time, as I in fact do. They probably now bear some stigma as 'carping liberals', or 'politically correct namby pampies'. So it did in fact work, politically. They were standing up for their First Amendment Rights as they have probably publicly opposed the PATRIOT Act and this new piece of rights tramalling which you seem to dislike, here on GB where it doesn't really make any difference.

4/Summoning up Scaylde. What is with that? You know what opinion she is going to present. Once I get back to the evidence and the actual debate I'll be demolishing her position too. Is she your minion? Fable II?
NOTE:- This is mockery, as people have made mistakes in the past, when I actually AM mocking something it will carry this message to point this out.

@Scaylde: In your first post you mention a Grade school teacher who was wasting the time of around 30 other pupils because of the vociforous complaint of a few creationist brain wipes. This is science being curtailed. In exactly the same way that your watching of T.V. would be curtailed if I stood between you and the T.V.

"Some Scientists say 1 million years ago" is not factually the same as "Scientists say 1 million years ago". It is also blatantly untrue. In Science to say 'Scientists say' means 'It is the generally accepted position within the appropriate scientific community'. Although it would be unnecessarily wordy and confusing having this inserted it would actually be the intended equivalent. ' Some Scientists' however implies that this is possibly not even a majority of scientists, it may actually present a minority position. This is so incorrect as to be characteristed as blatantly untrue.

Science is not religion. Religion is not science. Teaching a religious myth in a science class is curtailing and prohibiting the teaching of science. Would you like to fly with a pilot who spent half of the time they should have been studying aerodynamics studying levitation? Or go to a dentist who spent half their time studying the toothfairy? This is not mockery, as such, I have just presented equivalent arrangements in places where you are almost certain to not agree.

The reason that the 'million years' claim was opposed by the censoring, curtailling, and sometimes successful, prohibitionists is because it obviously contradicts the YEC(Young Earth Creationist) position of 6000 years (ROTFL). Because the YEC position is threatened by all branches of knowledge (which have a time line) they require all knowledge to conform to a RELIGIOUS position. The CSF (Creation Science Foundation) have been getting whacked on every piece of scientific evidence they have raised to support YEC for decades. This is the only basis for their teaching YEC in science classes, and it has so far, scientifically, failed utterly.

There have, as previously listed, been numerous attempts to have religion taught as science. The people who are sponsoring these have been told that their 'scientific' claims are baseless yet go on repeating them as if they were true. If someone deliberately and willfully tried to lie to my children, I'd be upset. Why aren't you?

A quote:- "Who do you think created science? Only a Higher Power could come up with something so complex and miraculous." Extra credit for identifying the source.

Was this unfriendly and 'heated' heck yes. I refuse to put up with lies. GB is just a social forum. Go ahead ban me.
The warlord sig of 's' - word

Making a reappearance for those who have a sig even longer :rolleyes:

[quote="Dilbert]That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard[/quote]

[quote=Waverly]You all suck donkeys[/quote]

[quote={deleted after legal threats}]I am so not a drama queen![/quote"]

:)

:mad:

:cool:

:mischief:

:angel:

:devil:

:angry:

Repent

For
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Nice lurking there.

As this is, as you put it, mockery, perhaps you can explain to me what you're mocking. I left the thread for several days, because I was upset about all the posts that were so "down on the bad US, with all their religious laws trashing science!" while conveniently neglecting all the nationalistic tripe that passes for truth in history books, everywhere. I returned after starting to read the thread again and noting with pleasure that there was some genuine and serious debate on the issue of what science should be taught. I never said I was going to leave for good. Nor did I leave because of you, and I think my reasons for leaving were, with respect, pretty clear.

1/ Quoting out of context. The quote you lifted to 'prove' your false claim was from before I explicitly said that demonising America was NOT my intention and in a thread explicitly about Georgia, USA.

I quoted you exactly, and only after you denied remarking that "the US was the great demon." I was pointing out that your comments like your "The last superpower prepares it's children for nuclear responsible world governance by insulting their intellect and preaching ignorance" was of-a-piece with the kind of comments posted here which were making me, as Voodoo put it, testy. Can't say I find my reply out of context, nor do I understand what the origins of this thread in Georgia has to do with anything. The subject took on a life of its own, as it always does in SYM, and rapidly became a pile-on of the US.

Mind you, I seldom object to a pile-on of the US. There are many good reasons to pile-on. But in this case, I take exception, because I consider the various attacks unfounded, and a bit unconsciously sanctimonious, given the history texts of all nations.

Saying 'I can't think of one' is either a statement of your interest in having evidence presented or a statement saying that you are of the opinion that I am lying and you know better. When presented with the evidence; if the first was true, an appropriate response would be:- I was not aware of that (or even, I hadn't thought that was relevant but) ....' Even if you then went on to disagree with the evidence in some way. To equivocate about the relevence and accuracy of the evidence from the get go and then to gag the debate by saying you've had enough is appalling.

Yes, it would be, if that's what happened, but it didn't. I've already copied your references for future study and use in discussions where the subject is doctrinal balance in schools, and found a few good sites for background detail. I think there's another whole thread, there, involving the teaching of science-as-dogma, inculcating a genuine intellectual curiosity in the young, and the problems of providing contrasting views that demonstrate the questing flexibility of science without becoming too arcane. But as I wrote before, the desire on the part of some to teach other theories of creation alongside evolution amount to a curtailing of the teaching of evolution, itself. I don't consider this splitting hairs, but a very real difference--disagree with me all you like about the difference, but it's genuine, on my part. And as the California 1981 attempts to rollback evolutionary teaching in schools were put on hold while the matter went to the courts--and ultimately failed--I still don't see any instance of a US state actually curtailing or prohibiting the teaching of evolution since the Scopes trial.

And if California 1981 had not been put on hold by the Courts, it would still amount to the only occasion where this has happened in 50 states in nearly 80 years. Given some of the politicians who have been elected to high office in those states during that period of time, it's quite amazing. But it also shows that despite the constant cries of political hacks during election years against evolutionary teaching (among other votegetters), very little is ever done in this vein. On the state level politicians use it just as a publicity tool, hardly worthy (IMO) of the shock and dismay shown over us American barbarians by the BBC, among others, who like to depict all US citizens as gullible, megalocephalic Luddites.

3/Someone actually had to oppose this proposal. If everyone calmly rolled over when this outrageous proposal was made it would be in place now. I'm certain the people who did the hard yards had better things to do with their time, as I in fact do.

And so do I, or did, when I had the lungs to tread turf for hours in front of the Chinese embassy for the outrages they committed at Tiananmen, and still do in Tibet. Good on you, and both of us. My point as I mentioned above was that, based strictly on personal and anecdotal evidence, the state and national politicians who make these stirring attacks on evolution the year before they're elected simply drop the whole issue as soon as they're in office. No one needs to oppose them. As I said above, it's (again, IMO) a waste of energy better spent on issues where they fully intend to create changes and where both cultural and legal precedents are a lot "softer."

I called the original matter of this thread a "tempest in a teapot" based on Lazarus' link to the Galt piece, which in turn links to the NY Times article. In it, Georgia State Superintendent of Schools Kathy Cox stated in public, "I am here to tell you that I misjudged the situation, and I want to apologize for that." She backed off of her attempts to remove evolution from the school books. Her remarks above in political speak mean she suddenly discovered that far from gaining political points for attacking evolution, Georgians were regarding her comments with disfavor. She had no emotional investment in the issue, much as I'd suspected--just a pig's nose for truffles. Only in this case, it wasn't a truffle she found, after all.

I wasn't gloating at you, or anybody else, here. I was only experiencing a bit of unusual glee during the standard gloom of an American election season because a politico had tried putting up the neon "I'm a Protector of Family and Motherhood killing evolution in schools for YOU!" sign, and discovered it still doesn't work in America, at least, not on a large scale. Praise be for that favor, at least. :rolleyes:
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Curdis
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: The edge of reality
Contact:

Post by Curdis »

I expected that any form of apology would be out of the question. So to your reply.

As this is, as you put it, mockery, perhaps you can explain to me what you're mocking. I left the thread for several days, because I was upset about all the posts that were so "down on the bad US, with all their religious laws trashing science!" while conveniently neglecting all the nationalistic tripe that passes for truth in history books, everywhere. I returned after starting to read the thread again and noting with pleasure that there was some genuine and serious debate on the issue of what science should be taught. I never said I was going to leave for good. Nor did I leave because of you, and I think my reasons for leaving were, with respect, pretty clear.

Bilge and Tish Tosh. You left in the middle of the arguement and said that you were retreating to lurker status. That meant that it would have been extremely sanctimonious of me to continue to make points in our arguement. You however felt NO compunction in having a 'free hit'. Hence the mockery. You getting upset is O.K. and I'm not trying to upset you. I apologised, because this is a social forum, to try and make you fell better about it. Fat lot of good it did me. That much is pretty clear.

I quoted you exactly, and only after you denied remarking that "the US was the great demon." I was pointing out that your comments like your "The last superpower prepares it's children for nuclear responsible world governance by insulting their intellect and preaching ignorance" was of-a-piece with the kind of comments posted here which were making me, as Voodoo put it, testy. Can't say I find my reply out of context, nor do I understand what the origins of this thread in Georgia has to do with anything. The subject took on a life of its own, as it always does in SYM, and rapidly became a pile-on of the US.

When you quote out of context you always quote exactly. So tish tosh to your first point. Now I am going to say it again, very slowly, my post was in response to a post on an 'educator' trying to eliminate the teaching of evolution in Georgia USA. My very first comment in response to the original post was "The last superpower prepares it's children for nuclear responsible world governance by insulting their intellect and preaching ignorance". This IN CONTEXT equals 'yuck' it had no reference to anywhere else and compared the US to nobody else directly. I'll actually stand by all of the statement and resile from it in no way what-so-ever. However IN CONTEXT I then went to some length to point out the failing and foibles of other nations. This is what quoting out of context to score cheap points means. If you didn't know before, you now do. I expect an improvement in your behaviour, regarding this from now on.

Yes, it would be, if that's what happened, but it didn't. I've already copied your references for future study and use in discussions where the subject is doctrinal balance in schools, and found a few good sites for background detail. I think there's another whole thread, there, involving the teaching of science-as-dogma, inculcating a genuine intellectual curiosity in the young, and the problems of providing contrasting views that demonstrate the questing flexibility of science without becoming too arcane. But as I wrote before, the desire on the part of some to teach other theories of creation alongside evolution amount to a curtailing of the teaching of evolution, itself. I don't consider this splitting hairs, but a very real difference--disagree with me all you like about the difference, but it's genuine, on my part. And as the California 1981 attempts to rollback evolutionary teaching in schools were put on hold while the matter went to the courts--and ultimately failed--I still don't see any instance of a US state actually curtailing or prohibiting the teaching of evolution since the Scopes trial.

And if California 1981 had not been put on hold by the Courts, it would still amount to the only occasion where this has happened in 50 states in nearly 80 years. Given some of the politicians who have been elected to high office in those states during that period of time, it's quite amazing. But it also shows that despite the constant cries of political hacks during election years against evolutionary teaching (among other votegetters), very little is ever done in this vein. On the state level politicians use it just as a publicity tool, hardly worthy (IMO) of the shock and dismay shown over us American barbarians by the BBC, among others, who like to depict all US citizens as gullible, megalocephalic Luddites.

Firstly meh, tish tosh and balderdash.
Some basic points here.
Prohibit means to legislate against something. (e.g. Prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 1930's - it didn't achieve anything it set out to achieve but encouraged organised crime. Still it was done to stop people drinking alcohol.) Whether or not the legislation actually causes something is irrelevant and in my post I pointed out one occassion where it took the US Supreme court to overturn it (the legislation) years afterwards.
The equal treatment is based on the incorrect assumption that evolution is somehow an alternative to creation. It isn't and creation isn't science. So to legislate that the precious minutes a child should be taught evolution should be diluted by teaching creation is to prohibit the teaching of evolution.

qv - You are just plain wrong. Your 80 years 50 states claim is sanctimonious bluster.

And my 2nd point (which you snipped without indication) was I objected to you calling me out. Did you? I think you did and your completely unrepentant post above indicates this is still the case. Well what of the evidence? You want to go on about comparative religion and you claim to see this as a science as dogma issue? Tish Tosh. What of all the other claims? How dare you ask for the facts and then deny them. And you have the nerve to claim that the 1981 example is in fact true (which would mean that I was right? Now I really am confused).

And so do I, or did, when I had the lungs to tread turf for hours in front of the Chinese embassy for the outrages they committed at Tiananmen, and still do in Tibet. Good on you, and both of us. My point as I mentioned above was that, based strictly on personal and anecdotal evidence, the state and national politicians who make these stirring attacks on evolution the year before they're elected simply drop the whole issue as soon as they're in office. No one needs to oppose them. As I said above, it's (again, IMO) a waste of energy better spent on issues where they fully intend to create changes and where both cultural and legal precedents are a lot "softer."

I called the original matter of this thread a "tempest in a teapot" based on Lazarus' link to the Galt piece, which in turn links to the NY Times article. In it, Georgia State Superintendent of Schools Kathy Cox stated in public, "I am here to tell you that I misjudged the situation, and I want to apologize for that." She backed off of her attempts to remove evolution from the school books. Her remarks above in political speak mean she suddenly discovered that far from gaining political points for attacking evolution, Georgians were regarding her comments with disfavor. She had no emotional investment in the issue, much as I'd suspected--just a pig's nose for truffles. Only in this case, it wasn't a truffle she found, after all.

I wasn't gloating at you, or anybody else, here. I was only experiencing a bit of unusual glee during the standard gloom of an American election season because a politico had tried putting up the neon "I'm a Protector of Family and Motherhood killing evolution in schools for YOU!" sign, and discovered it still doesn't work in America, at least, not on a large scale. Praise be for that favor, at least.*snip smilie*


No Fable this time putting a smilie at the end of a post isn't going to cut it.

You have quoted me out of context.

You have called me a liar.

How dare you say good on us for opposing things. You wish me no good.

I used to respect you greatly but I'm afraid until you calm down and handle the issues on their merits we have no common ground and I will not debate you.
The warlord sig of 's' - word

Making a reappearance for those who have a sig even longer :rolleyes:

[quote="Dilbert]That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard[/quote]

[quote=Waverly]You all suck donkeys[/quote]

[quote={deleted after legal threats}]I am so not a drama queen![/quote"]

:)

:mad:

:cool:

:mischief:

:angel:

:devil:

:angry:

Repent

For
User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 10:37 am
Location: Hiding from Extinction
Contact:

Post by Grendel »

This is going to end in tears if ya'll keep this up...
Ex-Member, Clan of One
Evil Gnome Cult
User avatar
T'lainya
Posts: 7272
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: Twixt firelight and water
Contact:

Post by T'lainya »

Ok, we're moving beyond debate to feelings of personal insult. Stick to the debate without getting personal please. Fable, I really didn't see or feel any sort of US bashing, merely debate on teaching various theories and where they are best taught. Curdis seems disillusioned with many different school systems, not just US systems. Curdis, take a deep breath and try not to take it personally, you might believe Fable is lying but calling him that to his face will not clarify any points nor bring about discussions of an intellectual nature.
No more attacks by anyone please. Stick to the facts and I won't have to bring out the whips for anyone but BS.
[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com"]GameBanshee[/url] Make your gaming scream!
"I have seen them/I have watched them all fall/I have been them/I have watched myself crawl"
"I will only complicate you/Trust in me and fall as well"
"Quiet time...no more whine"
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

I think, frankly, that I've had it with being told that when I write white, I'm writing black, and when I write round, I'm writing square. There wasn't a single statement in my last post that was read by you, @Curdis, to mean anything near what I wrote in it--not even my final emoticon, which was quoted as a smile, despite being rolled eyes.

Far from trying to ingratiate myself with you, I actually went back over my post last night and removed all evidence where I responded to anger with anger. It's amusing you think I would try to rectify the situation by merely being *nice,* one of the most unproductive methods of dealing with problems that exists, instead of by trying to explain calmly why you're missing everything I've said. But that's your problem, not mine. Maybe you'll discover that, some day, when you actually get whatever's in your system out of it.

My problem, on the other hand, is that I've actually believed far too long that people can and should reasonably discuss matters while having differences of opinion. Because in the end, we were all human, and that the only way we could see that was getting around the anger and the bull, and seeing ourselves in one another. So it actually mattered to put out brush fires, because people really *did* want to argue in order to understand better each other's POV. Which explains why my PM box has become, over the years, a daily message drop for every complaint about why SYM has too many spam threads, or far too little, or how X is being deliberately provocative and insulting, or why Y is stupid and dense, or why Z shouldn't be allowed to post because he or she takes "the Lord's Name in vain," or why X, Y and Z desire me to personally edit their posts ahead of time and make suggestions so there are no flames on the board, and no warnings, and everybody lives together with a modicum of respect.

If that sounds like self-pity, yeah, maybe it is. But hell, you have to find some medal to reasonably award yourself, when the only slaps on the back you get are repeatedly in private. Because out on the boards, you can best expect to get kicked around by anyone who's had a bad day or week and decided to ignore what you write.

Guys, I'm beginning to think maybe at99 was correct, after all, that people are always in every situation going to refuse to understand one another, and the only thing is to sit back and laugh at them. Though in his case, it involved making things deliberately worse, because he found that even funnier. I haven't gotten that bad, yet, but clearly this forum hasn't helped.

So, as of now, I'm resigning as both a member and moderator of this forum. This will please you, Curdis: I will not read, write, post, or, most importantly, moderate your (meaning anybody's) arguments behind the scenes or up front, again. When you want a hand held because somebody doesn't understand you--I don't want to hear about it. When you feel a grave injustice has been done to your POV--write to T, or Mah, or Buck. I'll be moderating the BG2 and KotoR forums, and that's it. I'm fed up with being a sympathy sounding board and getting kicked in public. As Mark Twain once said of the man being tarred and feathered and written out of town on a rail, "I'd forego it, if it wasn't for the honor of the thing." Well, the honor of the thing was never my object, here, but clearly I've failed in getting even my most basic points across if I periodically get savaged for things I haven't said by people I formerly counted as friends.

@Curdis, as you haven't PM'd me to date, don't start, now. I have too much respect for Buck's board to tell you even in private what I think of your personal habits and ancestry after that last completely undeserved flame of yours.

Enough of the grand drama. :rolleyes: I'm out of here. To all those who enjoyed the conversation and offered thanks for the support, it's been fun. Maybe we'll see one another in another place--only *this* time, *you* get to play project manager to a herd of cats.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Post Reply