OGTEleven

When should science stop re-examining itself? Do the majority of "us involved in science" know how evolution is being taught? The two sentences in your quote that I have bolded seem to be completely opposed. What am I missing?

I'm not even sure that the zealots driving the agenda believe in ID, per se. That is not the point. For the 4th time in this thread let me say......I do not believe ID belongs in schools, even as an elective. The point is that there has been enough angst in several communities about ID/Evolution to garner enough support to put it in schools. It is likely that this angst is not limited to zealots alone. If it were, there would probably be no raging debate. This angst should be enough of a sign to educators to at least re-examine the current course. That's it. That's all I'm saying. How could that hurt?

498748[/snapback] 1. It seems to be pretty widespread, but that is certainly anecdotal. In the places where the debate is hot (KS, PA) i would think there is a good impetus. 2. The strongest word I used was tweak and I only applied it to the way evolution is taught and the conclusions that are reached. that is hardly an indictment of scientific method, and nowhere near a sacrifice. 3. IMO, you are definitely at least partially right, but it is also possible that current teaching methods are somewhere south of perfect. Why not have at least some introspection if for nothing else but to prove you are taking the high road? 4. I don't think ID should be in school.

Read my post again. I said science owes it to itself.

That's clearly possible, but science owes it to itself to try. Yet, they still don't.

I'm not talking about teaching the scientific method or even evolution. I'm talking about applying scientific method to the way in which evolution is being taught. If a community uproar is the desired result of the teaching method, then the method need not be re-examined. If that is not the desired result shouldn't the teaching community at least take an inward look? If this re-examination concludes that the religious fanatics are the sole cause for all of the issues, then so be it. I'd be all for publishing that and if it were sound I'd back it wholeheartedly. Your approach seems to be concluding that all of these protests are completely invalid and spawned by idiots and that all of the teaching methods must be good simply because they are teaching methods.

Here are my opinions so you understand from where I'm coming (only opinions so I prefer not to have them called steamingly ignorant by a monkey): Evolution has a preponderence of evidence backing it up. It should be taught in schools as part of science. ID is generally bunk which was partly contrived by zealots whose own weak faith fostered an irrational fear of evolution. IMO, it does not belong in school, elective or not. There are other Christians that see evolution as an affront to their realtively strong faith. This may be from a lack of understanding on their part. It may be a result of poor/incomplete teaching at the school. It may be a combination. For whatever the reason, there are enough people in this category to help the zealots move their agenda forward. This is bad for everyone. This should lead the teaching community/adminstration(s) to re-examine their methods, and/or better explain what they are currently teaching, so that the public understands. I don't think that this is unreasonable and I believe it would help the school systems in the long run. Perhaps it would leave the courses intact, perhaps they might require tweaking.I find it curious that they disagree.

Your misinterpratation of what I was saying seems to have led to some sort of meltdown. I'll refrain from calling you hopelessly ignorant because I probably could have used better wording. My statement was not about the theory of evolution at all. I have no problem with evolution or the science behind it. What I was saying is that the scientific community, or at least its purported advocates, are not employing scientific method to the results of their teaching. If I were teaching evolution and enough of my community objected, I would probably be angry at first and think of these people as ignorant jerky losers. But if my scientific side truly kicked in, I might at least examine why so many people were angry. I'm talking about applying scientific method to the teaching practice. If so many people are angry, enough to drive changes in laws, shouldn't I want to know why? Shouldn't I at least give some perfunctory attempt to explain that the science in question does not offer value judgements on God? Shouldn't I at least listen when they explain why they think it does? Shouldn't I repeatedly inspect my teaching methods? Or should I just call them a bunch of ignorant jerky losers and leave it at that? I have never seen any introspection evident in the teaching community on this topic. Maybe it is there but just doesn't show up in these articles. Or maybe they just go with the "ignorant jerky loser" strategy because it works.

Clearly this whole thing is a bad remedy. I do find it interesting that the general gist of the articles is that: Christian groups are being 100% unreasonable They have no right to react to any perceived affront to their religion because the state has deemed their perception invalid. All Christians are whackos and should never have any say in public education because church and state must be separated Anyone who is purely science based (preferably someone that thinks evolution disproves God) is the ideal candidate to drive the curriculum because church and state must be separated at all levels. The thing that is overlooked is that the scientific community has zero willingness to examine themselves in an effort to improve. This is not a healthy approach. The fact that calling Christians whackoes is simple and easily accepted does not make it the right thing to do. As much as groups take advantage of Mickey's Christmas song type examples to generate publicity, others also assign the characteristics of a few Christain whackoes to all Christians. Neither is the right thing to do.

Even funnier than the Clark campaign?

You hope they'll lose the division? You Pats trolls really are fair weather fans.

Bill K. Public has nicer hair but inferior ties to Bill K. Public. Have you ever seen or read "Cybil"? VOTE!

ESPN ran a segment this morning where Steve Phillips posed as the GM of the Yankees and ran a mock press conference. There were real reporters in the conference (Olney, Schaap, etc.) and they asked him questions about the coming off season. I had to watch it because I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It was literally the worst piece of crap I have ever seen. They will encore with the Cubs tomorrow. Can I get a credit on my cable bill for actually accepting the signal from ESPN?

I thought that Saw was pretty good. I was mad at myself at the end because I almost had it figured out. There were a couple of things in the movie that made me suspicious (I'm trying to be vague so I won't give it away to anyone that hasn't seen it). I started thinking about it but honestly never really guessed it. If I had to make my pick it would be Galaxy Quest. I expected it to have one or two good laughs but otherwise be pretty bad. I ended up liking it a lot.

The Republican has nicer hair and the Democrat wears nicer ties. Make a decision!

The Chargers were by far the worst team in the league when they got those two. Now they are probably one of the top 10. Brees didn't play right away. How can you compare W/L records? Outside of the fact that they play in different diviosions and conferences, there are 20 other people on the team, including entirely different defenses. It is not a valid comparison. I don't see Vick every week, but when I have seen him, he has been far from a superstar. I'm not saying he is a poor player but he is way overhyped. They had already started hyping his brother going into this weekends game. I'll bet that quiets down.

This is not a defense of TO. I think what he did is ridiculous and find it hard to imagine him ever finding a good situation again. With that said, is it really necessary that everyone have the same opinion. On the Eagles TD pass the announcer actually said "TO who"? It made the situation bigger than the game and further exposed the soap opera mentality they are using to sell the NFL. Same goes for the Bruschi (We're not worthy!) (We're not worthy!) thing. And while I'm at it, why is it that when the LT/Brees vs. Vick discussion comes up, it is always treated as some grand debate? Correct me if I'm wrong but your choice is: An incredibly fast QB with a strong but inaccurate arm and average decision making or, The best RB (and maybe best player) in the NFL AND a very efficient, reasonably accurate QB with an average arm. What am I missing here? If I had to make that decision 100 times, I'd go with LT/DB 101 times.

I've seen the term "equivalent" used every time. It's not just the morons, it's part of the productions in graphics, etc. If he actually threw it 95 mph, they would say that (at least I think they would). Maybe I'm wrong, but there is way to much in a pitcher's motion to ever expect a QB to throw a ball 95.

They've been doing this equivalence thing lately. "That pass was equivalent to 95 MPH fastball." If if were traveling 95 MPH they'd just say it, so what is meant by "equivalent" in this case? Is their a conversion chart?

I made it easy on myself by selecting Minny over Tampa in week 1.

Leave him alone he's only at stage 2. Stage 1 - Desperate Stage 2 - Whipped Stage 3 - Feeling Oats Stage 4 - Horrible human being Stage 5 - Dazed and confused at a pharmacy Stage 6- I'm not really sure. Ed has pretty much stopped posting.

We need to understand their motivation before we condemn them. Did you even consider Algerian head scarves?

She's got the right initials. After that, she'll have to get in line behind the real MM.

Van Boxmeer

At least he didn't nominate Lance Ito.