![]() |
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
![]() |
#1 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 1,162
|
![]()
<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/683420.asp?0dm=C229N" target="_blank">Court passes on evolution debate</a>
Make sure you vote in the poll! |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: WI
Posts: 4,357
|
![]() Quote:
The Supreme Court of Minnesota had previously also denied LeVake's appeal. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 9,747
|
![]()
I didn't care much for the wording of the poll, even though the evolution side is winning. The questions were such that a reasonable person would likely be more comfortable with #3.
I would not say about evolution, or any other scientific theory, that it's "beyond doubt". Rather I would say that the doubt is sufficiently miniscule that it can be safely disregarded. theyeti |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Houston, TX, US
Posts: 244
|
![]()
I've watched so much evolutionary theory go by the wayside in my time that I'm inclined to agree with theyeti. I think the question was written by a journalist rather than a scientist. Given the tentative nature of science, it's never beyond doubt. But in trying to come up with alternate wording I thought about, "The evidence is so strong that the theory is beyond question." But that is even worse. The theory is always and ever subject to question. So what should it say? "The evidence is so strong that there is little doubt that the theory is essentially correct."
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,258
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 1,804
|
![]()
I am REALLY interested in what he finds wrong with evolution. Same old worn-out creationist shit, perhaps?
Here is the Fox version. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,42404,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,42404,00.html</a> [ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: butswana ]</p> |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ecuador
Posts: 738
|
![]()
butswana: According to the Fox article, the teacher is a dyed-in-the-wool YEC. I'd like to know how the hell he got a masters in biology education as a YEC? ICR now granting master's degrees?
[sacrifice to the goddess typo] [ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p> |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 1,804
|
![]()
I would say that he suffered through all of the blasphemous lies, in order to get his degree, so that he could set those 10th graders straight. Oh, the sacrifices one must make in order to spread The Turd of The Lord. What a fuck.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Washington, NC
Posts: 1,696
|
![]()
"...I will also accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory without turning my class into a religious one."
and ...LeVake alleged that respondents violated his right to free exercise of religion... Does anyone else find this inconsistent or disingenuous? |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: WI
Posts: 4,357
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
*DeHart is Roger DeHart, a Washington high school teacher that uses information from the peer-reviewed literature to clarify outdated or inconsistent material in the textbooks. Much of this law review article is devoted to comparing LeVake's and DeHart's methods, and showing why DeHart's survive Establishment Clause scrutiny. Quote:
Tevlin is Jon Tevlin, "Evolution vs. Creationism; Christian Teacher Unlikely Soldier in Ongoing Battle," Houston Chronicle, Aug. 20, 2000. [ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p> |
|||
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|