Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 190 of 283 (650510)
01-31-2012 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Granny Magda
01-31-2012 4:29 PM


Re: SHOW ME
Not at all, provided that there are legitimate controversies to be taught. Can you name any?
Yeah sure, science in itself, has to be constantly questioned and observed. I see no problem with a bill that wants to objectively question.
I think that that's dishonest and downright shameful.
That is how I feel about your brand of authoritarianism, something which you are disguising as protecting the education of children. You seem to be an equal of the discovery institute.
No.
Anyway, you live in Virginia apparently. That means that, by your own argument, you have no business discussing this either.
It's a free forum and within the rules I'll discuss what I please.
And I will continue to call you and your double standard out. I am not telling the people of Missouri how to live or how to vote, or how to run their schools, but you are.
Like I said, not everything I say is to do with my nationality. Try to grow up a little.
You are funny.
Actually, it's your country's constitution that tells them how to run their state, whether you like it or not.
Actually education is something that is up to the states.
If you want to imagine a world where the constitution doesn't exist, go ahead.
LOL
Meanwhile, this bill is being proposed in reality, where the constitution prevents the establishment of religion in public science classes.
Show Me.
where in this bill is religion being proposed to be taught in public science class?
oh yeah, it is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Granny Magda, posted 01-31-2012 4:29 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Taq, posted 01-31-2012 5:38 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 200 by Granny Magda, posted 01-31-2012 6:01 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 191 of 283 (650511)
01-31-2012 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Taq
01-31-2012 4:45 PM


Re: SHOW ME
I guess objectively reviewing scientific data is now a religion.
go figure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Taq, posted 01-31-2012 4:45 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Taq, posted 01-31-2012 5:32 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 194 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-31-2012 5:34 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 196 of 283 (650522)
01-31-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Dr Adequate
01-31-2012 5:28 PM


Re: Finally a voice of reason
Well, you can look at the track-record of the guy introducing it, and you can look at where and how the whole "teach the controversy" nonsense started.
I don't think that track record can be used in deciding upon allowing him to propose future bills. It may be used by the constituency if they want to vote for someone else, but I think that each bill has to be "looked" at in an objective light, and if it is determined that he is still being the same old toolbox well then you dismiss it.
If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck ...
it could still be a coot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN4d8KMIwJI
(which is in the Rallidae family and not the Anatidae family that ucks are)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-31-2012 5:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-31-2012 5:47 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 202 by Granny Magda, posted 01-31-2012 6:05 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 199 of 283 (650528)
01-31-2012 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Taq
01-31-2012 5:38 PM


Re: SHOW ME
taq writes:
Is that what elementary teachers are going to do, review data from scientific papers with their students? Really?
No, of course not. That is why this whole thing is pointless, which leads me to think that it is authoritarians trying to control the people of Missouri, anyone with half a thought can see that elementary teachers won’t be doing any of that.
taq writes:
Reviewing scientific data is done by scientists.
What is a scientist?
Scientist - Wikipedia
quote:
A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.
Is there some sort of degree or certification one needs, like a license or ID that qualifies them as a scientist.
It is the Dover case all over again. Need I cite that decision again?
No I read it last time, and it must be written in two different languages with the same script because I don’t read what you read, but posting it again will probably not change this.
Dr Adequate writes:
They don't want to objectively review evidence. Scientists have already done that. They want to talk crap that appeals to them subjectively based on their religious dogma.
The bill doesn’t state that, you are reading into it too much.
taq writes:
By teachers repeating lies and propoganda fed to them by the Discovery Institute? Or by scientists doing scientific research?
Can a teacher be a scientist or are they mutually exclusive?
Can Catholic Scientist be catholic and a scientist?
The Constitution does tell them how to run their school, and the bill is designed to give cover to teachers when they violate the constitutional rights of their students. The bill is a religiously motivated attempt to reduce the teaching of evolution. That is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
I don’t see it. I guess you didn’t show me.
taq writes:
So what is the purpose of having teachers do what has already been done, other than to give cover to teachers who want to introduce religiously motivated objections to evolution?
If the scientists are correct in their observations then having teachers go over the evidence another time would further prove the theory. That is of course if the observable data leads them to the same observation as the scientists. I would think that proponents of science would want their work to be reviewed.
I think that the majority if science is doing what has already been done, and it is not harmful, unconstitutional or religious in nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Taq, posted 01-31-2012 5:38 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-31-2012 6:01 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-31-2012 6:11 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 207 by Taq, posted 01-31-2012 6:24 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 210 by Trixie, posted 02-01-2012 4:02 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 204 of 283 (650534)
01-31-2012 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Granny Magda
01-31-2012 6:01 PM


Re: I've Shown You Mine...
I am only suggesting that the US constitution be applied in US schools. And an hour ago you didn't know what the DI was, so I hardly think your opinion counts for much.
I didn’t know what the acronym DI was. Man you sure like to straw man what I say.
Here is a google of DI: DI - Google Searchfficial&client=firefox-a (I listen to a lot of trance at di.fm, but knew that wasn’t it)
Here is a wiki of DI: Di - Wikipedia
Personally All I could think of was DynCorp Interternational
Look, this is a waste of time unless you can find some genuine secular purpose for this legislation. If you can't think of a single legitimate scientific controversy that this bill might reasonably promote, you have no case.
I have called this a waste of time for a minute now. If you can’t show me where in this bill there is a motion to teach religion in science then guess what you have no case either, buddy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Granny Magda, posted 01-31-2012 6:01 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-31-2012 6:18 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 206 by Granny Magda, posted 01-31-2012 6:23 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 208 by Taq, posted 01-31-2012 6:28 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 02-01-2012 9:03 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 217 of 283 (650608)
02-01-2012 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Dr Adequate
01-31-2012 6:11 PM


Re: SHOW ME
The act of killing someone by hitting them in the head with a blunt instrument doesn't state whether it's murder, manslaughter, or a legitimate act of self-defense. This is why we try to find out what the actual motives were with reference to things other than the mere fact of the blow to the head.
Its definitely not Kosher or Halal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-31-2012 6:11 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-01-2012 2:45 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 218 of 283 (650618)
02-01-2012 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Percy
02-01-2012 9:03 AM


Re: I've Shown You Mine...
I agree with you. This bill will probably have to be revised with some of the wordage changed a bit, really it doesn't accomplish anything, nor do I think it would affect much of anything.
To me this bill simply gives more power to the local policy makers, the local school boards and educators, instead of a large central government meddling with every facet of everyone lives down to elementary school education, and as a small government conservative, I really do not see the issue.
like many policies designed to give more power to smaller groups there is the possibility that some less than desired effects will take place (like some YEC teachers teaching some goofy shit), but that is up to the localities, and maybe the state. The passage of this bill does not mean that in places like St. Louis or Kansas City, or Columbia, MO will teach creationism in their classrooms. It could mean that people in Vienna, MO may, but then Vienna is 99% white, and 80% baptist (normal, Southern, and landmark), and if they want to be ignorant they are going to be ignorant, but trying to control them is not the way to go about it.
the slippery slope mindset that schools all across Missouri are going to teach creationism is what is silly to me, that the application of this bill is some vast conspiracy to deny people their constitutional rights is even sillier.
this is a bill for rural people in poor tiny communities, who want to govern themselves, and set their own curriculum. This thing is all political, this bill aint shit, it is not a statewide curriculum change, and it sure aint no big deal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 02-01-2012 9:03 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-01-2012 3:01 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 229 by Percy, posted 02-01-2012 8:54 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 219 of 283 (650619)
02-01-2012 12:15 PM


general reply to the bombsquad
Taq writes:
You would be very, very wrong. Only papers with original findings can be published in peer reviewed journals. The NIH and other grant funding organizations only fund grants that are looking for new discoveries.
ORLY?
Here is one: Gene expression analysis of the ovary of hybrid females of Xenopus laevis and X. muelleri - PMC
Takes previous work and builds on it. Working in baby steps, doing something that has already been done and building on it a bit. And it is from a researcher at the NIH. Go figure, but hey I’m very very wrong according to your genius on this subject.
coyote writes:
And we're going to get that from creationists?
Sure.
coyote writes:
Creationists are anti-science. They have to be as science not only fails to confirm their beliefs, but flatly contradicts many of them.
Rather than change their beliefs, creationists are out to cripple those parts of science they disagree with and to "wedge" their beliefs back into the school systems by increasingly dishonest means.
I would not consider you a poster who is a fan of blanket statements and generalizations. Especially one conservative to another, when I am sure you receive your fair share of generalizations around here for being conservative. Creationists may be against evolution but that doesn’t make them anti-science, I am surprised you do not understand the difference.
And you think they are going to provide "an objective review of scientific strengths and weaknesses?" What a laugh!
Dang what is with all your assumptions today? I think the bill could provide an objective review in the science classroom, as per the bill as is written, I am not even talking about creationists with regard to this bill.
Dr Adequate writes:
Did you forget what you were trying to argue for? Go back and try again.
Well shit. Why not straw man me like everyone else and tell me what I am arguing? Rofl.
Granny Magda writes:
If you think a coot looks like a duck then you shouldn't be teaching science to kids.
I don’t, though you shouldn’t preach the US constitution if you aint one of us, and aint here
Trixie writes:
I'm not trying to tell Missouri what they can and can't teach, I'm pointing out that it's the US Constitution that tells them what they can and can't teach. If they don't want to be governed by the Constitution I suppose they could always make enquiries about leaving the Union, but if they want to be a part of the Union, they have to accept the rules of the Union. They don't get to pick and choose which bits they'll comply with and which bits they'll ignore.
Just like I don’t tell you how to be a subject of your Queen, I won’t hear anything from you people about our constitution. Mind your own business.

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Coyote, posted 02-01-2012 12:36 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 221 by Blue Jay, posted 02-01-2012 1:59 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 222 by Taq, posted 02-01-2012 2:07 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 223 by Trixie, posted 02-01-2012 2:23 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 225 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-01-2012 2:46 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 227 by Granny Magda, posted 02-01-2012 4:26 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 228 by bluegenes, posted 02-01-2012 5:10 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 231 of 283 (650760)
02-02-2012 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Coyote
02-01-2012 12:36 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
coyote writes:
Sometimes generalizations are accurate.
Rarely, and this probably isn’t the rare case.
Just look at the absolute nonsense on the creationist websites and try to tell me they support science.
That is not necessary, I work with a good number of them, I can just ask them in person rather than read some website. And since we do science here at work, I guess I have IRL examples of creationists supporting and working in science.
All too easy.
Look at the Wedge document from the Dishonesty Institute. One of it's statements is, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." I can only interpret that as forcing the removal of the scientific and naturalistic approach used by science and replacing it with a theistic approach. ("You vill do science our way and you vill like it! Das is alles! Hallelujah!")
There you go generalizing again.
::shrugs shoulders::
And they figure they can get away with it through peer pressure from the community on teachers. I suspect that any teacher who teaches science as opposed to belief wouldn't last long. And I suspect that is the main intent of this bill.
I answered how I felt about this bill and how it would apply in my response to percy in post#215; this bill will not have a state wide effect, and believe me nobody wants a teaching job in Maries County, that doesn’t already agree with this bill.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Coyote, posted 02-01-2012 12:36 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2012 6:25 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 232 of 283 (650762)
02-02-2012 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Percy
02-01-2012 8:54 PM


Re: I've Shown You Mine...
I don't know if I'd characterize creationist efforts against evolution as a "vast conspiracy", but it does have a long history. Government advancement of the cause of any religion at any governmental level is unconstitutional, so if the bill does somehow pass it will quickly be challenged. Defending such efforts in court is very expensive for the losing side, but this hasn't seemed to diminish Christian enthusiasm.
--Percy
yeah yeah yeah. That is what the "they" said about Missouri's anti-gay marriage amendment, and here we are 8 years later and guess what that amendment is still there.
I guess we will see who is correct if this passes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Percy, posted 02-01-2012 8:54 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 02-02-2012 9:09 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 233 of 283 (650763)
02-02-2012 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by New Cat's Eye
02-02-2012 10:48 AM


Re: SHOW ME
it is not stated anywhere in the bill.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-02-2012 10:48 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-02-2012 4:44 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 234 of 283 (650764)
02-02-2012 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Dr Adequate
02-01-2012 3:01 PM


Re: I've Shown You Mine...
Dr Adequate writes:
What are you talking about?
Why some non voter in Nevada gives a shit what people do in elementary schools in Missouri.
If you live in a small enough, white enough, Christian enough town, can the mayor suspend the First Amendment? The Fifth? The Fourth? The Thirteenth?
If the whole community agrees, why not?
Well, there is a point beyond which they can't, just as "rural people in poor tiny communities" can't bring back slavery. They're part of the union, they should deal with that.
Poor rural people in tiny communities never participated in slavery to begin with, WTF are you talking about? Only rich people could own other people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-01-2012 3:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2012 5:09 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 241 by Theodoric, posted 02-02-2012 7:56 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 235 of 283 (650765)
02-02-2012 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Blue Jay
02-01-2012 1:59 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
Hi Bluejay,
Is it your position that all discoveries that build on previous discoveries count as "doing what has already been done"? So, for example, once we've sequenced the genome of one species, sequencing the genomes of other species would just be redundant? After all, who needs a wasp genome when we've already got a fly genome?
1. Not all but most.
2. No
3. We should sequence everything eventually.
Is this really comparable, in your mind, to giving relatively untrained school teachers the prerogative to scrutinize what has already been scrutinized by multiple generations of better-trained scientists?
I am not your typical EvC poster who is a HUGE fan of argumentum ad verecundiam. That we should listen to the better studied, better trained amongst us. I am more into making up my own mind on a subject with the data that I can find.
Trixie writes:
There isn't really an appropriate response to this boorishness. However I will not be butting out of this thread, since as a scientist I have every right to comment on attacks on science wherever they occur.
I don’t give a shit what you do, but I won’t respond to you or your opinions on MY constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Blue Jay, posted 02-01-2012 1:59 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Warthog, posted 02-02-2012 7:25 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 243 by Blue Jay, posted 02-02-2012 11:02 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 246 of 283 (651281)
02-06-2012 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Dr Adequate
02-02-2012 5:09 PM


Re: I've Shown You Mine...
Dr Adequate writes:
I never said that "poor rural people in tiny communities" owned slaves. I said that their poorness, their rurality, and the size of their communities wouldn't protect them from the Constitution if they wanted to make slavery legal. And I am right.
Ya don’t say?
http://www.american-slavery.org/our_mission.html
The Cotton Pickin' Truth: Still on the Plantation
Why Am I Not Surprised?: Documentary on U.S. Slavery in the 20th Century
There were/are still slaves in the 20th / 21st century in the rural deep south. Sure, they didn’t call them slaves, but as you say if it sounds like slavery and looks like slavery
Ronald Regan writes:
It isn’t that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.
What were you saying again about the constitution, and how poor rural people were protected by it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2012 5:09 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-06-2012 10:04 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 247 of 283 (651282)
02-06-2012 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Coyote
02-02-2012 6:25 PM


Re: Creationist websites are anti-science
coyote writes:
I contend that creationist websites are anti-science and can provide some good examples. You seem to disagree somehow.
This is not the proper thread for such a discussion--do you want to start a new one or shall I?
You want to start a thread about creationists web sites? It’s really not that big of a deal. You win, I’d rather not get into something that you think I am into that I am not into. I have no clue what you are insinuating right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2012 6:25 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024