NoGodBlog.com

I think it was a couple of months ago but a member of FFRF wrote in and said she was becoming a teacher in the Dallas area and was overwhelmed by the number of training teachers that supported ID. :(

I go to the beginning of school to meet the teachers and find out what exactly they are teaching. I follow up with my child to see if they are straying from the text books. Yanked my daughter out of one science class last year because the teacher was an idiot. Made sure the principle knew exactly what was going on. He sat in on the class to verify what I passed on to him.

That teacher no longer works at that school.

Parents need to stay involved in their kids activities. That is our responsibility as parents.

If more parents paid more attention, this 16% will get reduced quicker.

What does bother me more is the blue lines. yuk...

Just another argument for vouchers.

Mxracer, as much as I feel your frustration I disagree with your tactic. Opting out may help your student but will do nothing but increase those sadly long bars in the above charts.

Rather, follow the example of DeepDiver whose intervention helps not only their own child but the entire class X the number of classes that teacher had X the number of years the replacement teacher will stay in her school.

This is a little OT, but yesterday, I attended my grandson's preschool graduation. He went to the only preschool in town, which is run by a Baptist church. His father,uncle and aunt-all my kids- also attended there when they were preschoolers. I was amazed at how much more religious the program had become. The kids put on a show for us, which opened with them saying the Pledge of Allegiance. They did an excellent job; had it memorized to a tee. Then, they kept their hands on their hearts and pledged allegiance to the Christian flag. Then, again, one more time, a pledge to the Bible! After that, they entertained us with a mix of Christian and everyday preschool songs.

During the refreshments after, some of the kids had autograph puppies they were carrying around, getting their classmates to sign, I watched as my grandson signed tow of these. He was supposed to be prepared to go to kindergarten, but he made some of his letters backwards, and he wrote sideways to print. I noted that other kids had made their letters wrong in their names also. I looked at the artwork on the wall and saw the same kind of letter malformations, and some of the artwork looked like it was from kids just beginning preschool rather than graduating. But they could by-gawd memorize pledges to objects they had no way of understanding! It made me furious.

At the same time, my granddaughter, a year younger, who attends a daycare in another town (different moms, custody battle over the grandson, etc.)did her intake interview for all-day preschool and her parents were told she may not qualify because she may be too smart. In other words, she may be overqualified-there's nothing they could teach her and she'd have to just wait for kindergarten, because she's already ready for it, except age-wise.

My son took full custody as of the evening of my grandson's graduation, so hopefully he can work with him to make up for some lost time before his son actually goes to school. And maybe my grandson will actually be able to write his name correctly-something more useful than being able to sing "I love Jesus better than ice cream."

DeepDiver;

Did you have an alternative for your child's science teacher? Or were you forced to delay your child's science education for a year?

Either way suggests to me that you are very fortunate to be where you are; a lot of kids would have no choice when being 'taught' by such a person. Kudos to you for doing the right thing and informing the authorities in this case. But I worry about the kids who don't have these choices.

And, mxracer652, I would say that this is an argument for more stringent requirements for science teachers, and more active monitoring for teachers trying to foist their religious beliefs on their students.

tom:
There was an advanced science class that she was sent to. Made straight A's in it.

You do not have to stop at the school in your fight. In fact the principle was reluctant to do anything at first. It was when I threatened to go up the chain, when he took action.

Thanks

Vouchers are not needed. Simply require the parents to be responsible for the education of their children. If they don't want to pay for the care of their children they shouldn't have children.

Hmmmm, 16% of science teachers are teaching anti-science religious dogma.

Was this study done in the United States of Jesus?

I am in the middle of a teaching credential program in California.

Out of 15 people in my cluster (class group); I am the ONLY credential candidate that does not cite god/jesus/church as a motivation to educate students! There is a definite mistrust of science among my coursemates.

As parents (I am one), we must be aware of what is being taught in the classroom.

Know the content standards in your state and ask your child's teacher how she is teaching that content. It's soooo important!

Unfortunately monotheism supersedes reality focusing on obedience to a supernatural being.....

so how does science class go when facilitated by that 16%.....they must be buying a crap load of watches...which is obviously proof that god did it.....

so dont worry parents...gods got it...

faith...a leap from fantasy to fantasy....

UnGodly: Was this study done in the United States of Jesus?

Answer: No, it was performed by political science professors at Penn State University.

DD

You do not have to stop at the school in your fight. In fact the principle was reluctant to do anything at first. It was when I threatened to go up the chain, when he took action.

Good for you! It is folks like you that are on the front lines in the War on Stupid and I applaud your service. I have not had to fight such battles with my children's schools since we live a very enlightened part of the US.

OT alert

"A federal appeals court has ruled that Virginia's ban on late-term abortions, approved by the General Assembly in 2003 over objections from then governor Mark R. Warner (D), is unconstitutional."

The constitution is a beautiful thing.

how does monotheism retain its credulity with bullshit written 2000 years ago....

I mean if Genesis read: and let there be a cooling hunk of iron on an axis in an orbit around a burning ball of hydrogen....

I'd be impressed....

I was involved in the new Florida Science Standards over the past 3 years http://www.flascience.org/
The FCS will be monitoring teachers and school boards so that the new science standards are followed and that ID (Creationism)is omitted.
If, those of you that reside in Florida, experience, or are experiencing problems with their childrens science education classes, I would encourage you to contact me personally.

I agree ID and Creationism have no place in a public school science classroom, but the original post has misrepresented the findings of the study somewhat. I'm not disputing that the findings are troubling, though I feel it is important to represent them accurately.

The 16% figure is not how many HS biology teachers are teaching Intelligent Design, the 16% figure is how many personally believe in a form of young earth creationism. According to the study,
"Roughly one sixth of all teachers professed a “young earth” personal belief, and about one in eight reported that they teach creationism or intelligent design in a positive light."(12.5%)

The number of HS biology teachers who believe in a form of intelligent design (i.e., that God guided the process is much greater -- 47%) Only 28% stated a belief in a God-free process that occurred over millions of years and 17% are not covering human evolution at all.

25% spent time discussing creationism or intelligent design, though sometimes this was done in response to students questions or as part of a discussion of how the science behind these theories is flawed. However, half of the 25% who discusssed creationism or ID agreed or strongly agreed that they teach creationism as a “valid scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species.”

(According to the study, the margin of error was no more than 3.2%)

I don't think we should fire teachers based on what they believe, that would infringe on their freedom of belief. We should, however, fire teachers who teach bad science.
In this case, 12.5% (not 16%) should be fired. I also have serious questions about the 17% who aren't covering the topic, probably some of them should be fired too (if they are avoiding part of an assigned curriculum just because they personally disagree with it).

Jail-time for teaching bad science? I respectfully disagree. That would be a bit excessive, and a waste of tax-payer money especially when jails are crowded and violent criminals are being released early because of the overcrowding.

I am the science credential advisor for chemistry students at my college here in California. I took a phone call from a woman who told me that she had her biology degree and was in our teacher credential program but now wanted to switch her discipline from biology to chemistry because "I saw the high school biology teaching standards and it's all about evolution - and that conflicts with my morals and values"

Groan

Given that evolution has been the basis of biology for over a century, having a creationist as a biology teacher makes about as much sense as having me teach about Islam!

The thing is, are there enough non-creationists in certain geographical areas to even find someone who both has a degree and wants to be a teacher? Any volunteers for rural Arkansas? I'm sure that conservative school boards discriminate in some places, but in others they probably don't have to.

If teaching wasn't such a low paying profession in the US, perhaps these small towns could find teachers who are more qualified than the church receptionist. Oh yea, conservatives are against increasing teacher pay too.

Many of this 16% probably just skip over the whole section on evolution. That's how is was handled at my school 20 years ago and that's how it's still handled today. Whether those teachers present creationism or whether they skip the subject altogether, that's many generations of students who are not exposed to the foundations of modern biology.

It's a damn shame that kid's developing minds have to put up with so much destructive interference when they're sent to school to get constructive interference. Yeah, that's going to hurt the USA overall.

This is funny...

Pretty pathetic but if sixteen percent of biology teachers do not believe in science, can anyone answer what they are doing in schools?

How do you come to this conclusion? Because they don't believe in "your" definition of science?

Even Dawkins admits ID is possible...

I guess he'd be part of the Red Line...

Comment from: (: tom :)

Either way suggests to me that you are very fortunate to be where you are; a lot of kids would have no choice when being 'taught' by such a person.

Agreed...so why is AA against vouchers that would rescue inner city kids from failing public schools...?

*** OFF TOPIC ***

Say "What" and Ren...

A few serious questions...

Do you support Obama's view that we should turn the thermostat down and grab a sweater instead?

Or that we can't eat what we want?

A former co-teacher of mine in the St. Louis city public schools refused to teach evolution, which was part of the curriculum, because she didn't agree with it. I asked her how she felt about depriving the students of this information which the state of Missouri required her to teach. Of course she had no problem deleting it from her lessons. I was so disgusted by her actions.

I'm in a new district now and evolution is NOT part of the curriculum. The teachers here act like EVOLUTION is some kind of evil word that should not be spoken aloud. I'm surrounded by Catholics and have just begun to find a few freethinkers hiding in the closet.

why does religion seem so pesky

*OT*
I just had the pleasure of attending a reading tonight by author Austin Dacey of the Center For Inquiry from his new book "The Secular Conscience". I recommend it to everyone:

http://www.amazon.com/Secular-Conscience-Belief-Belongs-Public/dp/1591026040/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211336474&sr=8-1

Also you might be interested that the Thought Police in London have arrested a teenager for calling $cientology a cult:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1

This is when I'm glad to be in Canada, one time I had a biology teacher, in the relatively religious province of Alberta, who didn't believe in evolution, but she was forced to teach only evolution, the way it should be. I hope that the United States can become the same way someday.

this is why school board elections are important.

So nationally about 75% of HS bio teachers agree with the statement: "human beings have developed over millions years". Is this an improvement over say twenty years ago. We may be making progress. Also 9% were in the "no answer/no opinion" group. Could they be supporters of evolution that are resistant to outing themselves in there present teaching environment?

good points What

btw What
i hope you don't quit AA even though we are on opposite sides of the political divide AA needs passionate people like you.

Reason

Thanks reason. We may not be as far apart politically as you think - at least with respect to government openness, a dedication to rational approaches to US political issues, and the accountability of our government to its citizens.

It depends upon the board. If they practice openness, starting with Ellen's firing, then I will continue to support AA. If they continue on their presently opaque path then I will shift my support to the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

Lookout for peedumb, master of lying!

Dawkins admits ID is possible

Comment from: quantum_flux

Lookout for peedumb, master of lying!


Dawkins admits ID is possible

So qf...you don't believe me eh? What will you do when I prove you wrong...?

This may explain why Americans are just as ignorant as they were 25 or so years ago.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx

43% believe that god created human beings as they are now and only 14% understand evolution.

I think Einstein said it best "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

those who will not teach evolution and want to teach ID as science are weak and childish human beings. that pretty much says it all.

"In Gods Name"
Chrisitian fundamentalist nutters are alive and well in the UK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeTfW8-dCNE&eurl=http://richarddawkins.net/article,2613,In-Gods-Name,Channel-4

Say "What" and Ren...

A few serious questions...

Do you support Obama's view that we should turn the thermostat down and grab a sweater instead?

I already do. I live on a fixed income, so if I want to pay the electric/gas bills, I turn down the thermostat to around 62, and dress warmly, and sleep under an electric blanket. Likewise, I turn the thermostat up in the summer to keep the humidity down and the house livable, but I rarely go below 75 degrees.

Or that we can't eat what we want?

We already cannot eat what we want. We can't eat psilocibin mushrooms; marijuana, peyote buttons, etc... What would it matter if they threw twinkies on the list? More people die each year from obesity related illness than from drug use, anyhow. Maybe they SHOULD outlaw some foods.

Maybe they SHOULD outlaw some foods.

What you are advocating is food facism.

What you are advocating is food facism

We already have drug facism. I know it's a play on words, but why does the FDA (aka FOOD and drug association) ignore 1/2 of their responsibility (while they dilly dally with the other half, pandering for cash).

Micky Deez kills more people than Mary Jane. In fact, I belive Mary Jane is quite innocent.

Karen, I think pats on the back are in order for your granddaughter. Rejoice that she overqualified for preschool. Leave that seat open for a child that needs it. A child that lacks the stimulation your granddaughter has access to. Apparently, the interviewers realized that there's nothing that they can teach her as school that she can't learn at home, a sign of excellent parenting (and grandparenting!)

Micky Deez kills more people than Mary Jane. In fact, I belive Mary Jane is quite innocent.

I agree but I think that as liberty loving Americans we should allow people to decide for themselves whether they wish to partake of marijuana and Big Macs. Of course consuming the former often leads to consumption of the latter...:-)

I'm curious to see what percentage of Biology teachers are creationists in...say...Sweden?

cry4turtles

Thanks. I know it's a compliment to my granddaughter's abilities and her parent's efforts that she's too advanced for pre-school. It's just that she's a very social little gal and was really anticipating the experience from that perspective. The irony in the situation is that my son agreed to delay his custody until the end of my grandson's pre-school year, so as not to take that bit of continuity away from him and his maternal grandparents, as he couldn't offer him the same kind of pre-school where he lives. As it turns out, my grandson would have learned more from the daycare his half-sister is in.

I don't think I'd mind too much if they taught ID to my daughter, other than the reprisals from the teachers and staff when she wins the argument against ID.

I think my seven year old daughter would not be able to control her laughter if a teacher started talking creationism.

Comment from: phreedm

Comment from: (: tom :)

Either way suggests to me that you are very fortunate to be where you are; a lot of kids would have no choice when being 'taught' by such a person.

Agreed...so why is AA against vouchers that would rescue inner city kids from failing public schools...?

Because those vouchers are usually not used to rescue inner city kids from failing public schools, but instead are used to subvert children into considering deviant christian religious insanity as acceptable.

What you are advocating is food facism.

Relax, the only thing I am advocating is facetious-ism.

Good things the kids are too busy texting each other during class to pay attention to what the teachers are saying.

I just love it when people start freaking out about intelligent design.

Now you folks know how WE feel, seeing the theories of evolution being taught to our kids as scientific "fact"!

Actually, when you look at the idea or theory behind intelligent design objectively, you begin to see that it makes sense. The best example that comes to mind is the human eye.

I'll have to go find the stuff I read on this a while back, but as I recall the paper that was written on I.D. theory concerning the human eye was well thought out and actually grounded in science.

-Tim

P.S.

The main problem I have with people who dismiss I.D. and the possibility that there actually IS a Supreme Being is that they take an absolutist approach to the argument.

Folks who do not believe in God and deny that there is even the possibility of God's existence actually have a lot in common with rabid religious zealots! The common thought process is the same, ie. they have a pre-concieved notion about things and simply will not open their minds to other possibilities.

Tim:

Now you folks know how WE feel, seeing the theories of evolution being taught to our kids as scientific "fact"!

It is, get used to it.

Actually, when you look at the idea or theory behind intelligent design objectively, you begin to see that it makes sense. The best example that comes to mind is the human eye.

Oh, you're kidding, right? The human eye is about the worst example EVER.
If we were to measure your 'gawd's' love by the construction of the eye, it loves squid more than us.

I'll have to go find the stuff I read on this a while back, but as I recall the paper that was written on I.D. theory concerning the human eye was well thought out and actually grounded in science.

There is NO 'ID' theory. It's all a bunch of 2nd guesses, unfalsifiable, unrepeatable, untestable.
Ergo, it fails to fall in the scientific realm of 'theory'. I advise strongly that you use the dictionary to look up the term.
(HINT: Conservapedia is NOT a legitimate source.)
I suppose now we're going to hear about how the kids should 'vote' on what they learn? How it's 'only fair' that ID gets a shake?
It's absurd.
When has ANY child had a say in what they learn in school? Answer: NEVER.

Tim let his ignorance shine out:

Folks who do not believe in God and deny that there is even the possibility of God's existence

Has anyone here ever actually met an atheist that fits this description? I know I haven't.

Tim

Your's is one of the most ignorant posts we have had here in a while.

I love the smell of fresh religious insanity in the morning! It smells like... fantasy!

Comment from: Tim

I just love it when people start freaking out about intelligent design.

Almost as much as we love it when religiously insane idiots like you start phreaking out about teh gayz...

Now you folks know how WE feel, seeing the theories of evolution being taught to our kids as scientific "fact"!

I'm sure it must be difficult for the religiously insane, who do not base anything in their lives on facts, just the insane ramblings from their Big Book of Religious Fairy Tales, to consider things like ratinal examination of reality and scientific methodology as tools to come to a conclusion, instead of handling snakes and speaking in tongues.

We don't teach alchemy or astrology in the science classroom either. Should we start reading entrails again too?

Actually, when you look at the idea or theory behind intelligent design objectively, you begin to see that it makes sense. The best example that comes to mind is the human eye.

Actually, when you look at the idea or theory behind intelligent design, you will see that it in untestable in the science classroom. Which is basically why it cannot be taught in the science classroom - it fails the basic test of scientific study: can we build a repeatable, verifiable test to determine if it is true?

I'll have to go find the stuff I read on this a while back, but as I recall the paper that was written on I.D. theory concerning the human eye was well thought out and actually grounded in science.

I know of a lot of science fiction novels that are also well thought out and grounded in science. But I'm not hiding from the Thetans or preparing for the Kzinti to invade anytime soon.

P.S.

The main problem I have with people who dismiss I.D. and the possibility that there actually IS a Supreme Being is that they take an absolutist approach to the argument.

The main problem I have with those who support ID as being a scientifically valid theory is that they cannot offer any proof to support their beliefs (which do not even attain the level of scientific hypothesis). Until you can find a way to design a scientific test that would prove or disprove ID, then I would argue that it is you who are being the absolutist here when you expect an untestable faith-based belief to be accepted as a valid scientific theory.

Folks who do not believe in God and deny that there is even the possibility of God's existence actually have a lot in common with rabid religious zealots! The common thought process is the same, ie. they have a pre-concieved notion about things and simply will not open their minds to other possibilities.

I would ask that you prove this statement. I disagree that the thought process is even similar, let alone the same. Science opens its' collective mind to possibilities that it can test and verify, and IMHO ID does not allow the possibility of it's being wrong. And I would think that atheists don't accept the Invisible Sky Fairy because they can't find any proof that it exists - sort of the opposite of belief. And that religiously insane idiots such as yourself cannot understand that some people do not feel the need to believe in any brand of occult pagan superstitious nonsense, and have to adjust the atheists' world view to include a belief system because they cannot conceive of anyone who doesn't believe in something.

Finally: What: I think Tim's is one of the most religious posts here in a while, and he needs to curtail his intentional ignorant invisible sky fairy propaganda on a website devoted to non-religious commentary. But I also think that, like the usual religiously insane phreaks around here, he will be unable to stop spreading pagan dren around here.

Timmy

The best example that comes to mind is the human eye.

*Sigh*

Good timing though. Because PZ Myers just happens to have an article up right now about how shrimp vision is superior to human vision:

We mammals have been beaten again. Shrimp have more sophisticated eyes than we do, with the ability to see things we can't, and I'm feeling a bit envious.

For the whole article, see
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/the_superior_
eyes_of_shrimp.php#more

Now Timmy, why do you suppose the great OZ would give the lowly shrimp, which must not be eaten for it is a shellfish, sight superior to that of the creation which had dominion over the earth? Hmmmmm? Whyforhowcome? And why does the designer have such an aversion to shellfish?

(: tom :)

What is the definition of "dren"? I see a few different meanings listed at www.urbandictionary.com none of which look well accepted.

tom,

Have I talked about religion at all here? No, I have not. In fact, you might be surprised to learn that I agree in principle with the arguments made by a lot of you here - Religion IS man-made! I define religion as man-made tenets and adopted practices thought to get one closer to God.

What I'm talking about is simply whether or not a Supreme Being exists. More specifically, being open to the POSSIBILITY that God exists.

I've run into more than a few folks here that simply close their minds to even the POSSIBILITY! THis is actually the opposite of what they want me to do, which is open my mind to the possibility of say, evolution. I am criticised roundly for keeping an open mind by the same folks who keep their minds closed!!!

Now, to be fair I have conversed here with professed Atheists that acknowledge that that God may actually exist. At least they are honest and keep an open mind to possibilites beyond their current understanding.

Which camp are tou in, tom?

tom,

I perceive that in some way you feel threatened when folks like myself post here. THus your "over the top" response!

I can debate rationally with the best of them, my friend. Give it a try.

-Tim

alatham,

How long have you been posting here? You may not remember the many conversations I've engaged in a few years back, but I have seen both types of folks - Atheists that vehemently deny even the possibility of God's existence and those that are keeping an open mind to the possibility!

Tim:

I can debate rationally with the best of them, my friend. Give it a try.

Self delusion is the bread 'n butter of the relusional.

Atheists that vehemently deny even the possibility of God's existence and those that are keeping an open mind to the possibility!

Do please share, then, your personal definition of this gawd character.
& while you're about it, provide evidence of the soul.
(this oughta be a good for a few laughs.)

Tim

If you ask nonsensical questions you will get nonsensical answers. You nor anybody else, to my knowledge, has ever given an operational definition of the words "gawd" and "exist" that make the question "Do gawds exist?" anything but nonsensical. You start with a totally unacceptable notion that the question has meaning. It does not and therefore any "answer" that you get, from atheists or otherwise, will be nonsensical.

You say you can "debate rationally with the best of them". OK then you can start by giving us an operational definition of the words you use. Do it.

Comment from: What

(: tom :)

What is the definition of "dren"?

I got it from Farscape. I believe it is their equivalent to $h!t...

Comment from: Tim

tom,

Have I talked about religion at all here?

IMHO, yes, you have:

I just love it when people start freaking out about intelligent design.

Now you folks know how WE feel, seeing the theories of evolution being taught to our kids as scientific "fact"!

Perhaps you might be a bit clearer when you talk about how WE feel with regards to evolution. Why, it almost sounds like you're trying to compare the scientific theory of evolution to a religion, or even imply that it is a religion. And maybe that's why I thought you were talking about religion.

What I'm talking about is simply whether or not a Supreme Being exists. More specifically, being open to the POSSIBILITY that God exists.


Talk about it all you want - in a religious studies class. If you want to talk about it in a science classroom, perhaps you could focus on trying to prove or disprove it scientifically?

I would also question your statements about evolution as well - they point to your misunderstanding of how science works, and your attempts to inject faith into scientific methodology. There is no opening your mind to the possibility of involved in creating and performing tests, and analyzing the results to create an explanation the supports the results of the testing.

I am criticised roundly for keeping an open mind by the same folks who keep their minds closed!!!

Incorrect - you are criticized for trying to bring untestable faith-based assumptions into the realm of scientific theory. And you also seem unable to comprehend the difference between believing in something no matter what the evidence shows, trying to create an explanaton that fits all the facts, and not believing in something because there is no evidence to support the belief.

Which camp are tou in, tom?

My personal beliefs are just that - personal, and none of your business. But I will say that, scientifically, there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of gawd - and so should not be studied in science class.

I can debate rationally with the best of them, my friend. Give it a try.

Perhaps you could heed your own advice?

So far, all I have seen is unsupported statements about an Invisible Sky Fairy that you think others need to be open to the possibility of. I can perfectly understand why challenging your unsupported, unfounded beliefs would be considered over the top by such as you.

And I know that the pagan occult superstitionists are threatened when I make comments like this - they repeatedly remove them from faith based web sites (no matter how politely they are phrased) and refuse to consider any discussion that does not accept their unfounded beliefs as fact.

Funny how the religious suppress dissenting points of view in their own realms, but feel entitiled to spew their religious dreck continuously to those 'lacking in faith' on atheist web sites...

Tom

Dreck steeped in dren.

What,

What the H#@ll are you talking about? You make no sense at all.

KA,

I can give my own definition of God, but you know as well as I that there is no way to prove the existence of a spiritual realm using the frame of reference available to us in this physical world.

It's kinda like trying to imagine an alien life form. If we were to actually encounter one, we would likely not be able to communicate with it or describe it to others who had not seen it.

tom,

Whoa there, big fella...

You are not only jumping, but leaping to conclusions about what I am actually thinking or what I believe in. Please don't paint me with such a broad brush.

For example, I understand perfectly how science works. I also understand where science leaves off and conjecture masquerading as science begins. The various theories of evolution are a good case in point. Another one is the current theory of "global warming."

People also get confused about the scientific method and how it works. Remember that true science doesn't deal in "facts", but rather assumptions or theories that need to be tested. The problem is, you can't really "test" some of the theories put forth by those who believe evolution is scientific "fact." They have filled a lot of the holes in the fossil record, for example with pure conjecture.

I understand that science can explain many phenomena, but there are many things science cannot explain. This does not mean that what science doesn't have an answer for simply do not (or cannot) exist! To believe so would actually go against the tenets of true science itself.

Finally, if science classes were really focused on teaching instead of pushing only one side of the argument, perhaps we could give our children a more balanced view of the world. If scientific theory is so mighty, what does it have to fear from other theories?

Tim

tom,

Whoa there, big fella...

You are not only jumping, but leaping to conclusions about what I am actually thinking or what I believe in.

You are a right-wing-evangelical-BushCo-supporting bafoon. Does that about sum it up?

Comment from: Tim

tom,

Whoa there, big fella...

You are not only jumping, but leaping to conclusions about what I am actually thinking or what I believe in. Please don't paint me with such a broad brush.

You mean, like the way you're jumping to conclusions about what atheism is all about? Or the way you're lumping in the scientific theory of evloution with my theory that anyone who believes in a big book of religious fairy tales is seriously mentally unbalanced?

Funny how it seems to be okay when you're the one doing the painting...

For example, I understand perfectly how science works.

Is that why you continually misreprensent how science works, what constitutes a scientific theory, and whether intelligent design is even a scientific hypothesis, much less a scintific theory?

I also understand where science leaves off and conjecture masquerading as science begins. The various theories of evolution are a good case in point. Another one is the current theory of "global warming."

Please check up on the difference between a scientific theory, and the garden variety theory that people come up with every day. Your statement that the various theories of evolution (which lumps in the scientific theory with scientology, religious belief, and my Theory of Religious Insanity as if they all had the same weight scientifically) as being conjecture masquerading as science tells me you have fallen into one of the standard logical fallacies of the religiously insane. Your dismissal of the evidence of global warming (which, if I'm not mistaken, has not yet been proven or disproven enough to be considered a scientific theory - it's more of a hypothesis as far as I can see) also points to your injection of faith and belief not supported by scintific tests and factual results of said testing into the science classroom.

And you still haven't told me how you propose we test the theory of intelligent design. Let me know when you come up with that, and then maybe ID could be considered to be discussed in science class as a speculative hypothesis (with less evidence than global climate change, by the way). Until then, you still haven't shown any reason why ID should be taught in the science classroom...

People also get confused about the scientific method and how it works.

Please edumacate me on the basis of your awesomely extensive scientific studies. Exactly what field of scientific inquiry did you get your first doctorate in? Where can I find your published works on how ID is a valid scientific theory, the proofs of that claim, and how to set up an independent test so I can verify your conclusions?

Remember that true science doesn't deal in "facts", but rather assumptions or theories that need to be tested.

Those scientific assumptions and theories are based on repeatable tests that can be objectively observed. If they don't pass the test, they are abandoned if favor of those that conform to the test data more closely. Can you tell me what the equivalent assumptions and tests are for ID?

The problem is, you can't really "test" some of the theories put forth by those who believe evolution is scientific "fact."

And, if you can't then they're not a 'theory', as far as science is concerned. When they can be tested, if they are found to be lacking then they are amended or abandoned based on the facts observed. Even if you could test ID, would it be amended or abandoned if the facts say that it should?

They have filled a lot of the holes in the fossil record, for example with pure conjecture.

Conjecture which is ready to be proven, and ready to be abandoned, if it is incorrect. Which has actually happened over the course of the scientific theory of evolution's history. Please enlighten me about the simliar process that has taken place with ID theory.

What exactly is your point here? People don't just believe in evolution because a big book of religious fairy tales said so, and it is quite offensive to the non-religious when people like you try and make it out to be just another superstitious belief.

I understand that science can explain many phenomena, but there are many things science cannot explain. This does not mean that what science doesn't have an answer for simply do not (or cannot) exist! To believe so would actually go against the tenets of true science itself.

It also doesn't mean that any unsupported wild ass fansaties do exist. To believe so, as you appear to be doing, would also go against the tenets of science too.

Funny how it seems to be okay as long as its' your wild ass fantasies that are being brought into the classroom...

Finally, if science classes were really focused on teaching instead of pushing only one side of the argument, perhaps we could give our children a more balanced view of the world.

Science pushes a particular methodology in evaluating speculation in order to determine whether the speculation can be used to predict what will happpen in the real world. It does not focus on pushing any one side of any argument, but instead tried to provide a framework that can be used to figure out which side of the argument is closer to being completely accurate in its' application in the real world. Your belief that science is pushing sides of an argument is also quite offensive in terms of being applicable to scintific inquiry, or being used in any discussino of the merits of any particular scientific theory.

If we could avoid exposing our children to pagan occult superstitionist cults, their religiously insane beliefs, and their deviant behavior, perhaps we could give our children a more balanced outlook on life.

If scientific theory is so mighty, what does it have to fear from other theories?

If religion is so mighty, why oh why can't it stay within its' own arena, instead of insisting that it be applied and integrated within every other aspect of every human's life (whether they believe in it or not)?

tom,

You lost me at the mis-spelling of bufoon...

Timmy,

tom,

You lost me at the mis-spelling of bufoon...

Okay, genius:

mis-pelling = misspelling

bufoon = buffoon

End of English lesson.

Arrrrgghhh! Too much wine! The Nuns who taught me all through grade scholl would be appalled!

Well, I can't type either, so whip me with a wet noodle...

Actually it's the keybored's fault...

OK tom;

Here it is. I'm NOT going to test the theory of intelligent design! I do not even propose we do, in the classroom or elsewhere.

If memory serves me, I don't think teachers dwell on the testing of evolutionary theory that is taught in our schools either.

It's kinda like the man-made global warming nonsense being heralded as "scientific" fact. If you take a different view, you are ridiculed and held up for scorn as also believing that the earth is flat!

This is the essence of my disagreement with those who elevate their particular theories by wrapping them with the shiney outergarment of science!

Tim

You are just to stupid to be real. Fess up! Which one of you pranksters here is doing this right-wing-evangelical-BushCo-loving
caricature called Tim.

What (I don't know),

I am deeply hurt by your insinuation that I am not real! Don't you remember our many tender conversations from years back?

Don't you remember our many tender conversations from years back?

I think you've mistaken What for someone else.
'Dren' is a Farscape reference. Scatological.

I'm NOT going to test the theory of intelligent design! I do not even propose we do, in the classroom or elsewhere.

Good thing, too. You'd lose.

If memory serves me, I don't think teachers dwell on the testing of evolutionary theory that is taught in our schools either.

Evolution is the backbone of biology.
Besides which, there are scientists who do that.

It's kinda like the man-made global warming nonsense being heralded as "scientific" fact. If you take a different view, you are ridiculed and held up for scorn as also believing that the earth is flat!

Squirming to change the subject, being on thin ice & all.
Even RUPERT MURDOCH, staunch opponent of many years, has ceded it's a reality.
PS, CO2 can kill ya, ya know.

I am the editor of www.ChristianGuideBook.com

I have some questions for the evolution people - 1) Why did we all of a sudden stop evolving? 2) Why are there no monkeys evolving into humans today?

Come on, these are simple to see errors that make it impossible to believe the evolution theory.

I'm only doing as commanded by my Lord - to spread His word throughout the land to all of His people. Please, stop denying there is a God just so you can live in sin.

I have some questions for the evolution people - 1) Why did we all of a sudden stop evolving? 2) Why are there no monkeys evolving into humans today?

^ Statement from ignorance.

If you watch an analog clock you cannot honestly state that you witnessed the movement of the minute or hour hands however, the hands move regardless of your inability to see it happen.

Evolution is a fact and humans are evolving. Monkeys are not directly related to humans, however, even if they were, that in no way suggests that their evolution would always result in a human, although, indeed the result could be human-like.

rna2dna: If humans are physically evolving, then what are the changes? What are we evolving to?

I agree, I can't literally see time pass, but if we are evolving, then we would be able to witness the physical differences taking place. Humans haven't physically changed in centuries. This is why evolution is a theory, and will always remain to be so.

KA,

It's kinda surprising to see folks defend the religion of global warming since you folks are all about science!

The fact is, science DOES NOT support the neo-religious dogma that mankind's activities are somehow causing global warming (or the new buzzword - "climate change")!

In fact, there is so much science out there that DISPROVES the current thinking that people are finally starting to realize what the global warming crowd's agenda really is. They are not out to save the planet, that's for sure!

christianguidebook

We're not evolving "to" anything. Evolution is not on any plotted path, does not have a plan. Evolution is just gradual change over time for the purpose of adaptation to environment and survival of the species.

We don't see the changes taking place because it takes so long to happen. For instance, in this video Richard Dawkins explains the evolution of the eye. For one type of eye, it took 250,000 generations of the species for the eye to evolve from a sheath which could merely detect light and shadow, to a camera type eye which could focus clearly on a predator's face.

http://richarddawkins.net/video/eye_explanation_sm3.mov

When I tried to view the video, I only got the audio portion, so you might have to use your imagination. But Dr. Dawkins still describes quite clearly what he is presenting.

christianguidebook,

[Incidentally, I have been told that the bibel is the only true christian guide book, am I to assume you admit you are your god-idea? Assuming that your christianguidebook isn't the bibel.]

Centuries? You think centuries is a long time? When comparing that time scale to an analog clock we wouldn't even be able to see the second hand move. However, there have been changes in humans within the centuries time scale. You should be able to name at least one even with a very basic knowledge of human physical attributes within the last centuries. Go ahead, you tell me.

What are we evolving to (you ask)? Clearly, the future is not predetermined.

Just for general amusement, here is a link to a picture of a nautilus (in associtation with the link karen provided in which Dr. Dawkins discusses the evolution of the eye.) [As christians often need things presented with them as the center of attention, do note that the eye isn't the same as the christian eye.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nautilus_profile.jpg

Comment from: christianguidebook

I am the editor of www.ChristianGuideBook.com

Good for you! Exactly what do you think you're going to accomplish around here?

I have some questions for the evolution people - 1) Why did we all of a sudden stop evolving? 2) Why are there no monkeys evolving into humans today?

1) - we didn't. Microevolutionary changes (of which you are incorrectly and obliquely refer to here) are quite difficult to notice.

How can you even conceive of the changes to a species over millions of years, when your pagan occult superstitions say the world is only 6000 years old?

Come on, these are simple to see errors that make it impossible to believe the evolution theory.

Come on, your theocratic superstitious nonsense has conditioned your mind to make it impossible to utilize rational thought in its' ravings.

I'm only doing as commanded by my Lord - to spread His word throughout the land to all of His people. Please, stop denying there is a God just so you can live in sin.

I'm only doing as commended by my resoning mind - to show religiously insane idiots like you that your offensive, superstitious nonsense is not appreciated by all, and your ignorance in continuing to shovel your dren is in direct contradiction to the supposedly moral values you claim to follow.

Please, stop trying to foist your Invisible Sky Fairy on rational people by making religiously insane comments on this blog.

Oh, and you can keep your definitions of 'sin', your mind reading about why atheists choose to reject pagan occult superstitions, your rationale for harassing and percesuting your fellow man if they fail to share your delusional mindset, and your sanctimonious superior attitude about those who are not part of your cult.

Comment from: Tim

tom,

You lost me at the mis-spelling of bufoon...

Funny - the first time it was used, much less spelled incorrectly, was in your comment immediately after mine. Why, it's almost as if you're religious in your willful stupidity about science.

Comment from: Tim

OK tom;

Here it is. I'm NOT going to test the theory of intelligent design! I do not even propose we do, in the classroom or elsewhere.

Which would lead me to ask exactly why you think it should be taught in science class, when science class is all about testing scientific theories in order to determine their validity.

Don't worry - religiously insane idiots like you have a track record of failing to back up their dren with logic and facts - and I certainly don't expect you'll stop that now.

If memory serves me, I don't think teachers dwell on the testing of evolutionary theory that is taught in our schools either.

Check your memory, dude. Teachers in my science classes dwelled on a lot of the other scientific theories, but for each and every theory put forth, we were shown how to devise a way of testing it, and a methodology of how to devise those tests.

Then again, I didn't take science classes at Bob Jones U...

It's kinda like the man-made global warming nonsense being heralded as "scientific" fact. If you take a different view, you are ridiculed and held up for scorn as also believing that the earth is flat!

If your different view had some sort of factual basis, unlike the global climate change deniers, you wouldn't be scorned or ridiculed. That's for the religiously insane to do when you come up with a scientific theory that disagrees with the pagan occult superstitions in their big book of religious fairy tales.

Funny how you conflate flat earth theory with global climate change. Why, it's as though you're religious in your denial of human culpability for some of the climate change!

This is the essence of my disagreement with those who elevate their particular theories by wrapping them with the shiney outergarment of science!

And here we have another attempt to weave religious imagery into a discussion about science. Your disagreement is unsurprisingly lacking in facts, and you utilize a lot of the standard rhetorical tricks of theocratic fundamentalists. And you still haven't provided one reason why this superstitious nonsense should be taught in the science classroom beside the Theories of Gravity, Relativity, Thermodynamics, or Evolution.

Another religiously insane idiot tries to inject his theocratic superstitions into a rational discussion of science. Yawn...

tom,

Your f'ed up in the head. I won't bother...