Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tgamble · 08-15-2002, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Dorner:
<strong>
"The courts allow for multiple teachings," said board member Lindsey Tippins. "We need to put that in our policy and allow that in our classrooms." Scientific creationism, Tippins said, is the idea that life has evolved not through happenstance, but in a purposeful way. What distinguishes scientific creationism from creationism?</strong>

LOL! What till AIG gets a load of THAT!

hezekiah jones · 08-15-2002, 06:36 AM

TeresaFPlenge@cobbk12.org

re: Cobb mulls teaching evolution alternatives

Dear Dr. Plenge:

I read with great interest this morning a report at accessatlanta.com entitled, "Cobb mulls teaching evolution alternatives."

In it, you are quoted as asserting: "There is validity in creation science theory as well. Both should be presented."

Are you aware that, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "creation science theory," and that a non-existent entity cannot have any properties at all, least of all, and especially in this case, "validity"? And are you aware that presentation of the oxymoronic "creation science" in public school biology curricula was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court 15 years ago?

I was under the impression that Republicans favored smaller government, and thereby fewer government expenditures. So why, pray tell, would an esteemed member of the Grand Old Party such as yourself apparently favor committing public funds into the hands of attorneys in order to defend what would inevitably and necessarily be a doomed enterprise?

I would be extremely interested in receiving your comments, particularly with respect to the successful predictions and retrodictions achieved thanks to the "validity" of "creation science theory," and thank you in advance for your time.

Regards,

theyeti · 08-15-2002, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiah jones:
<strong>
When the f*uck are these people going to get it through their heads.</strong>

What's the asterix for?

hezekiah jones · 08-15-2002, 11:27 AM

[Pee Wee Herman]

I meant to do that.

[/Pee Wee Herman]

Grumpy · 08-15-2002, 02:28 PM

Quote:

quoted by wildernesse:
scientists are influenced by societal, cultural and personal beliefs

This is one of the over-arching themes in many essays by Stephen J. Gould. Is this supposed to be controversial? (Other than the ambiguous distinction between "societal" and "cultural.")

Camaban · 08-15-2002, 08:36 PM

Notice something on that poll?

most of the people who favour teaching Creationism don't want Evolution mentioned.

48% Creation only
3% go both ways
49% Evolution only.

Camaban · 08-15-2002, 08:38 PM

BTW, if this is anything even remotely like an example of the rest of the US, I am swearing here and now that I will NEVER live in the US...

unless there's a rather large pay-packet involved.

Only money could make me go in amongst a mentality that's that scary.

Camaban · 08-15-2002, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Board member Laura Searcy said the district needs to determine if the alternative theories are science-based.

Got a few problems with getting it in there.

Quote:

The people on the creation side of the debate have been getting better at making their case in a scientific fashion."

Yes, they've had practise.

Quote:

The district's policy should reflect community standards, said board Chairman Curt Johnston. And in the past several months, he's heard more from the anti-evolution side.

Probably on account of the anti-evolution side is louder.

wildernesse · 08-15-2002, 09:09 PM

Grumpy:

Since we all know that the science world is filled with atheists, we should remind students that science�especially the evolutionary part�is controlled by atheistic thought! Obviously, all of us are influenced by our cultural system and personal beliefs. Why must scientists be singled out in the classroom for this? Oh wait, because we must learn that science is a human endeavor influenced by a variety of beliefs.

--tibac

Starspun · 08-15-2002, 10:14 PM

Scientific Creationism is not possible.
These people need to define and understand science. Then, with that information, understand why. Here is one example:

Law of Conservation of Energy...the total energy in the universe or a system can neither be created or destroyed but it can be converted from one form to another.

Our universe and everything within is energy and mass. Energy and mass are interchangeable, therefore, science has proven their new 'creation theory' wrong by taking out a designer or creator.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-15-2002, 06:36 AM	#12
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	TeresaFPlenge@cobbk12.org re: Cobb mulls teaching evolution alternatives Dear Dr. Plenge: I read with great interest this morning a report at accessatlanta.com entitled, "Cobb mulls teaching evolution alternatives." In it, you are quoted as asserting: "There is validity in creation science theory as well. Both should be presented." Are you aware that, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "creation science theory," and that a non-existent entity cannot have any properties at all, least of all, and especially in this case, "validity"? And are you aware that presentation of the oxymoronic "creation science" in public school biology curricula was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court 15 years ago? I was under the impression that Republicans favored smaller government, and thereby fewer government expenditures. So why, pray tell, would an esteemed member of the Grand Old Party such as yourself apparently favor committing public funds into the hands of attorneys in order to defend what would inevitably and necessarily be a doomed enterprise? I would be extremely interested in receiving your comments, particularly with respect to the successful predictions and retrodictions achieved thanks to the "validity" of "creation science theory," and thank you in advance for your time. Regards,

08-15-2002, 11:27 AM	#14
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	[Pee Wee Herman] I meant to do that. [/Pee Wee Herman]

08-15-2002, 08:36 PM	#16
Camaban Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 473	Notice something on that poll? most of the people who favour teaching Creationism don't want Evolution mentioned. 48% Creation only 3% go both ways 49% Evolution only.

08-15-2002, 08:38 PM	#17
Camaban Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 473	BTW, if this is anything even remotely like an example of the rest of the US, I am swearing here and now that I will NEVER live in the US... unless there's a rather large pay-packet involved. Only money could make me go in amongst a mentality that's that scary.

08-15-2002, 09:09 PM	#19
wildernesse Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 1,578	Grumpy: Since we all know that the science world is filled with atheists, we should remind students that science�especially the evolutionary part�is controlled by atheistic thought! Obviously, all of us are influenced by our cultural system and personal beliefs. Why must scientists be singled out in the classroom for this? Oh wait, because we must learn that science is a human endeavor influenced by a variety of beliefs. --tibac

08-15-2002, 10:14 PM	#20
Starspun Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 334	Scientific Creationism is not possible. These people need to define and understand science. Then, with that information, understand why. Here is one example: Law of Conservation of Energy...the total energy in the universe or a system can neither be created or destroyed but it can be converted from one form to another. Our universe and everything within is energy and mass. Energy and mass are interchangeable, therefore, science has proven their new 'creation theory' wrong by taking out a designer or creator.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.