Kansas evolution debate

Drocket

Drocket

CAGiversary!
Yeah, I know there's sorta already a couple threads about this, but they've all gone completely off-track, so I'm starting a new one.

The latest news out of the debate is that a number of the key individuals who are going to make the decision about what to teach in science class haven't actually bother to READ what it is that they're debating. I'll give you 3 guesses as to which side is it, too.

The previously linked article had a fun little by-play in it describing the problem...

Martin, who said she had doubts about evolution, said many of the science standards proposed by the majority were too technical for her to read thoroughly. She said she had read most of the minority report.
Click to expand...
and later
Most are strong proponents of intelligent design, the idea that nature is too complex to be the result of natural processes, and therefore is best explained as the work of a creator. They want this idea taught in public schools as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...

So to sum up, the people who are arguing that the world is too complex to be explainable by evolution are also too stupid to manage to read a report that's sums up one topic in a high-school science class. Really, I'm not quite sure what more needs to be said there...
 
I read an article where a Pennsylvanian "Intelligent Designer" was at the school's board meeting yelling "Jebus died for our sins, it's about time that we give him the respect he deserves!"
 
Does anyone start threads in this forum without there being some news article to cite? If you have an idea, then post it. Maybe we could discuss our own ideas without citing unreliable stuff as if it were truth. That's not to say that your article is a lie, but what some dumbass says somewhere else probably has absolutely no bearing on what the people here think, and should not be used to discredit the argument made by others who might have actually used logic to reach similar conclusions. These issues are often much greater than what is in these articles (no matter which side they lean toward) so maybe it would be a more productive way to spend our time if we focused on the greater issue instead of looking for opportunities for potshots.
 
[quote name='atreyue']Does anyone start threads in this forum without there being some news article to cite? If you have an idea, then post it. Maybe we could discuss our own ideas without citing unreliable stuff as if it were truth. That's not to say that your article is a lie, but what some dumbass says somewhere else probably has absolutely no bearing on what the people here think, and should not be used to discredit the argument made by others who might have actually used logic to reach similar conclusions. These issues are often much greater than what is in these articles (no matter which side they lean toward) so maybe it would be a more productive way to spend our time if we focused on the greater issue instead of looking for opportunities for potshots.[/QUOTE]

Yes, "god" forbid we use things like news articles (teh liberal media!!!11!) and scientific reports to discuss the veracity of the theory of evolution.
 
[quote name='atreyue']Does anyone start threads in this forum without there being some news article to cite? If you have an idea, then post it. Maybe we could discuss our own ideas without citing unreliable stuff as if it were truth. That's not to say that your article is a lie, but what some dumbass says somewhere else probably has absolutely no bearing on what the people here think, and should not be used to discredit the argument made by others who might have actually used logic to reach similar conclusions. These issues are often much greater than what is in these articles (no matter which side they lean toward) so maybe it would be a more productive way to spend our time if we focused on the greater issue instead of looking for opportunities for potshots.[/QUOTE]

Mainly we don't do that because we've heard all of those arguments a thousand times before. The point of articles is to show some new point, although many fail to even do one of those.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Mainly we don't do that because we've heard all of those arguments a thousand times before. The point of articles is to show some new point, although many fail to even do one of those.[/QUOTE]
If the discussion on a topic is around for long enough and occurs in enough places - like the debate over these hearings is - then someone's bound to come up with an new idea eventually.

You know...monkeys, Shakespeare, and so on. ;)
 
[quote name='Gothic_Walrus']If the discussion on a topic is around for long enough and occurs in enough places - like the debate over these hearings is - then someone's bound to come up with an new idea eventually.

You know...monkeys, Shakespeare, and so on. ;)[/QUOTE]

Exactly! And when that new idea comes up it would be kind of someone to post it here.;)
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Exactly! And when that new idea comes up it would be kind of someone to post it here.;)[/QUOTE]
Are you sure that's a good idea?

Do we really want to subject the poor thing to internet trolls?
 
[quote name='Gothic_Walrus']
Do we really want to subject the poor thing to internet trolls?[/QUOTE]

We've already done that, infact as long as PAD and his ilk post their crap in this forum I couldn't care less.

I just hope to god people stop making this fucking evolution topics, it's really getting old. People have a choice they can believe in science or they can go to a "special" private school.:D
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']We've already done that, infact as long as PAD and his ilk post their crap in this forum I couldn't care less.

I just hope to god people stop making this fucking evolution topics, it's really getting old. People have a choice they can believe in science or they can go to a "special" private school.:D[/QUOTE]

Intelligent design does sound like the sort of thing that we would teach "special" kids.
 
[quote name='camoor']Intelligent design does sound like the sort of thing that we would teach "special" kids.[/QUOTE]

I just wonder how they came up with the idea? It seems like someone finally decided to admit that the whole adam and Eve creation bit was a myth but in order to maintain power or perhaps just in fear of the scientific community they come up with an equally irrational concept but one that is so abstract that disproving it is nearly impossible.
 
[quote name='Gothic_Walrus']If the discussion on a topic is around for long enough and occurs in enough places - like the debate over these hearings is - then someone's bound to come up with an new idea eventually.

You know...monkeys, Shakespeare, and so on. ;)[/QUOTE]

Gothic_Walrus, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']The point of articles is to show some new point, although many fail to even do one of those.[/QUOTE]

I agree. This doesn't seem to be one of those so it seems to be a waste.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yes, "god" forbid we use things like news articles (teh liberal media!!!11!) and scientific reports to discuss the veracity of the theory of evolution.[/QUOTE]

I personally could care less about god. I think Douglas Adams summed his son up quite nicely. The media is as much a tool of conservatives as liberals. And it doesn't seem to me that this was posted with any intent of the mature discussion this forum is supposed to be reserved for.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I personally could care less about god. I think Douglas Adams summed his son up quite nicely. The media is as much a tool of conservatives as liberals. And it doesn't seem to me that this was posted with any intent of the mature discussion this forum is supposed to be reserved for.[/QUOTE]

Neither was this ^^
 
[quote name='camoor']Neither was this ^^[/QUOTE]

i forgot, I'm not supposed to actually respond to comments that people make on what I say.

And just in case you didn't realize it, I was referring to the article.
 
[quote name='atreyue']i forgot, I'm not supposed to actually respond to comments that people make on what I say.

And just in case you didn't realize it, I was referring to the article.[/QUOTE]

Listen, you want to single me out for some reason, but don't you think that thread crapping on one thread is enough? This is the last time I'm responding to you in this thread.
 
[quote name='camoor']Listen, you want to single me out for some reason, but don't you think that thread crapping on one thread is enough? This is the last time I'm responding to you in this thread.[/QUOTE]

Somehow my response to the op and bringing up what some considered was a valid point about this thread is thread crapping? And responding to something you say to me is me singling you out? Ok...
 
[quote name='fanskad']Gothic_Walrus, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.[/QUOTE]
Quoting "Hitchhiker's" in the debate forum?

10 out of 10 for style, but minus several million for good thinking. ;)

(And yes, that was meant to be a joke...)
 
[quote name='Gothic_Walrus']Quoting "Hitchhiker's" in the debate forum?

10 out of 10 for style, but minus several million for good thinking. ;)

(And yes, that was meant to be a joke...)[/QUOTE]

I thought that line was older than the hitchhiker's guide? Something about given long enough even a monkey could type shakespear?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']I thought that line was older than the hitchhiker's guide? Something about given long enough even a monkey could type shakespear?[/QUOTE]
Not that one...the penguin line. They made a reference to it in "Hitchhiker's" (and for the record, I do know it's much older than that), but that's not what I was referring to.

Sheesh. Some geek you are... :roll:
 
[quote name='Drocket']Yeah, I know there's sorta already a couple threads about this, but they've all gone completely off-track, so I'm starting a new one.

The latest news out of the debate is that a number of the key individuals who are going to make the decision about what to teach in science class haven't actually bother to READ what it is that they're debating. I'll give you 3 guesses as to which side is it, too.

The previously linked article had a fun little by-play in it describing the problem...


and later


So to sum up, the people who are arguing that the world is too complex to be explainable by evolution are also too stupid to manage to read a report that's sums up one topic in a high-school science class. Really, I'm not quite sure what more needs to be said there...[/QUOTE]

This is a real dead horse, not this recent issue, just the idea in general that religion (not god) is worthless and does 10 times more bad than good.
 
[quote name='Gothic_Walrus']Not that one...the penguin line. They made a reference to it in "Hitchhiker's" (and for the record, I do know it's much older than that), but that's not what I was referring to.

Sheesh. Some geek you are... :roll:[/QUOTE]

I'm not a geek at all.:D
 
I think the Scientologists and their army of lawyers need to get a piece of this action. If "the earth is 6,000 years old and God created it in 6 days" is a valid thing for our kids to learn, why not all that crap about thetans and Xenu and stuff?
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']I think the Scientologists and their army of lawyers need to get a piece of this action. If "the earth is 6,000 years old and God created it in 6 days" is a valid thing for our kids to learn, why not all that crap about thetans and Xenu and stuff?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'd prefer to have the beautiful Hollywood Scientologists trying to cram their "religion" down my throat rather than the ugly Southern Baptists. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top