Evolutionary Debate
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 16:16
VIEWED: 20170
PAGE 18 of 20
Took time for the theory to evolve into practice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pretty much what I learned in this thread is that anybody who has a hard stance on this issue either way is a great big asshole. I'm happy to say that I don't really care much one way or the other and I hope that you both manage to destroy each other.
Here's hoping that you both choke on each other's bullshit.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
AP, Feb 13,2007.Quote:
TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of ridicule.
The new guidelines reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution and represent a political defeat for advocates of “intelligent design,” who had helped write the standards that are being jettisoned.
I thought that was over with a long time ago.
Fred, It's come and gone several times in Kansas. Someone was quoted in the AP piece as saying that students have had 5 different standards on Science Education in that state in the last 8 years.
I'm gonna simplify this, and try not to make value judgements- this is summarized from the AP story and reflects what I remember seeing reported.
Before 1999, evolution was part of the curriculum, like that mainstream scientific view above.
In 1999, religious conservatives got elected to the state school board, and put language in the curriculum supporting intelligent design, if not out and out creationism.
They got voted out of office in , I think it was, 2003, and replaced by some liberals. I think there was a court case in there somewhere, and the religious conservatives lost in court. The liberals took out the intelligent design stuff, and put evolution back in.
This is when, I think, you think it got over with.
In 2005, the religious conservatives, maybe a different bunch of folks, won the next election, and put intelligent design in, and all of the " teach the controversy" language, and all of the " evolution is an unproven theory " language.
I think they got sued again, and lost in court again. I think this was one of the cases that shot the legality out from under intelligent design.
Anyway, in the 2006 elections, a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans ( That's how the AP characterizes them. I make no value judgement, nor editorial comment.) won and threw the religious conservatives out. The new , liberal board of education are the guys who put evolution back in this latest time.
The conservative folks released a statement, quoted in the AP piece , saying that they weren't going to fight about it any more, but accept the decision.
Liberal folks released a statement saying the curriculum would remain mainstream at least until the next election.
More details , if ya need or want, 'em , can be found in the Associated Press piece, or by searching the web for news about the Kansas board of Education.
My apologies to anyone of either side who I might have offended here. I made an honest effort to not use any loaded term to describe any group or person, and to report what I remember of the facts and story without referencee documents at hand. It's also possible that in summarizing, I did not give one or the other side's argument its fully detailed, exactly accurate description. Further, I have tried not to express my own opinions, but to repeat the history as objectively as I know how to.
( Boy, I feel like one of those legal guys at the end of a car commercial. " This offer not valid on all models, some buyers may not qualify")
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
6string, taking a stance and being able to defend it isn't a bad thing. Taking a stance and NOT being able to defend it is. No prizes for guessing which side is defendable and which one isn't in this debate.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
6string- There is a point in ideology where reality no longer matters. Total freedom is an articifical construct, and believing in it to the exclusion of everything else makes one a prisoner of one's own thoughts.
I think you have reached that point. If you REALLY want to be free, you have to open up to the influences around you, otherwise your course is as pre-determined as if you were hypnotized.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whatever you say brother. Of course it's your opinion that is defendable here in your eyes because that's where you stand. I don't really think that an extreme here is right either way.
Hope you're right and you don't burn in hell one day. I'm not judgeing. If there is a hell, I'll probably be there waiting for you with a big fatty blunt we can smoke on and laugh about how bad we screwed up while we dance on the hot coals. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And from where I'm standing Signym, you suffer from this as much as you believe that I do, so I guess we're all just prisoners of whatever bullshit we happen to believe in. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's no way to 'prove' reality. Everything can be assumed to be objective, or subjective. But personally, I'm not willing to step off the 21st floor or walk in front of a train to test how 'real' the world is.
Science assumes an objective real world that runs according to its own rules. It's just a way of trying to discover the rules. You have an idea of how something runs, you test it out. Either it worked, or it didn't and you go back to figure out where you went wrong.
Some people find that idea threatening. They'd rather think of themselves as totally free agents rather than as physical beings in a physical world of physical laws.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm of the Elmer Fudd school of thought.
If you don't know that gravity exists, you won't fall off the cliff. Keep pushing and you people are going to find out a whole lot of things that you really don't want to know. Once you've learned it, you can't unlearn it. The warnings are out there.
I just wish that science wasn't something else that was up in my grill every damn day. Just leave me out of it. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm of the Elmer Fudd school of thought.
If you don't know that gravity exists, you won't fall off the cliff. Keep pushing and you people are going to find out a whole lot of things that you really don't want to know. Once you've learned it, you can't unlearn it. The warnings are out there.
Um...how do you explain how babies who have never heard of gravity stay down?...Just wondering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME