The ‘Darwinist Inquisition’ Starts Another Round

http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=169

[inquest]

Scientific principals aren't decided by plebiscite.

But under our system of government, school curricula are. We've did pretty well for a long time without judges second-guessing those decisions. If you don't think school curricula have the right material, the proper thing is to persuade the decisionmakers (i.e., the people) otherwise. Getting the courts involved is the leftist route.

[hosepipe]

[ Their franchise is threatened. Their Grants. Their status. ]

EXACTLY.. Follow the money.. on both sides.. LoL..

Academia is batting zero on the free anything issue..
Except for free government grants..

Most all academics are socialists.. could be most "Evos" are too.. in some mannar.. Most "Evos" would be against local control of school curricula... that is, let the locals control what is taught.. Federal control serves the "Evos" well..

A Free Republic and the "Evos" are not on the same page, always.. A fact seldom mentioned on these kinds of threads.. Gutting federal government does not serve the "Evos" agenda well.. Are "EVOS" also RINOs?.. maybe.. unless they are confused.. Surely some are..

[vpintheak]

You are sounding like a pretty good liberal there. Anything else you would care to not let people hear? Perhaps only you and your kind know what is best for us? Give it up. If you and your buddies are really conservatives as you claim, you wouldn't care if people are taught different viewpoints. It is called critical thinking, something, once again, liberals do not do.

[Louis Foxwell]

You ever watch Jay Leno's Jaywalking interviews? Think "the people [should] decide" what is taught?

This is rich.

So who should decide, Leno?

Your neighborhood elitist educator?

The elected local school board?

[kjo]

If the ACLU is against it, it must be of some good.

[ECM]

You have some gall bringing facts to bear in a thread like this...

;)

[orionblamblam]

> So does this pic mean you'd be in favor of dropping these suits and letting the people decide what they want taught in their school districts?

Why, yes. Let the schools teach any damned-fool thing. Keeping superstition out of science class... why that's just downright unAmerican!

[truthfinder9]

"and don't have a good model of their own"

Actually they do, see Who is Adam? and Origins of Life. I'm sure the Darwinian Talking Points Newsletter didn't tell you that.

It also probably didn't tell you that scholars have answered the simpleton "Who exactly is this designer supposed to be? What is the origin of the designer? Surely if the designer designed us, then he must have a designer that designed him, or we are back to square one." over and over. Look it up.

[Louis Foxwell]

Surely if the designer designed us, then he must have a designer that designed him, or we are back to square one.

Ever heard of an uncaused cause?

The issue is that science has pushed the atheist, random assumption to the wall and it does not work any more.

[inquest]

I don't always disagree with everything they have to say, but that sure as hell doesn't mean I want them running our school systems.

[Borges]

Educators who are trained in a given field should decide what constitutes scholarship. Otherwise education is a sham.

[Chaguito]

The discovery of argon by Rayleigh and Ramsey was the result of an observation that something was wrong with the data for the density of nitrogen and for the stoichiometry of reactions of oxygen from air vs. isolated pure oxygen.

IOW there was no clue as to what the source of the error was, but further analysis showed what it must be like, later confirmed.

The fact that ID (in its short time of existence as such) has not demonstrated the nature of the designer does not make it inherently unscientific. One could argue that the nature of the designer can never be determined, but that would be an unwarranted statement, begging the question whether the designer is indeed supernatural.

And for those who continue with the straw man accusation against ID that it is disguised biblical creationism, the book Uncommon Dissent, a compilation of essays on ID contains the writings of Christians, mystics, agnostics and atheists.

[Liberal Classic]

Chromium and copper don't follow the aufbau principle! Valence theory is a fraud! Teach the controversy!

[Busywhiskers]

"Just stick a little parenthetical in saying "here a miracle occurs" and hope no one notices?"

Actually, given the probabilities involved in the "goo to you by way of the zoo" theory that is pretty much what evolutionary scientist have done.

[inquest]

Your low opinion of your fellow citizens is duly noted.

Sheesh, and you guys are bedwetting over the idea that creationists make conservatism look bad?

[Borges]

How would you feel about Scientology being taught in a science class?

[inquest]

I don't even know what Scientology is, but if it's as way out there as everybody says, then I'm pretty confident that most school districts would reject it without the tender guidance of the courts.

[Oztrich Boy]

The “Darwinist inquisition,” as a Discovery Institute press release calls it,

Now there's a fine impartial source.

What's next? Citing a Code Pink press release comment on G W Bush?

[jennyp]

You are sounding like a pretty good liberal there. Anything else you would care to not let people hear? Perhaps only you and your kind know what is best for us? Give it up. If you and your buddies are really conservatives as you claim, you wouldn't care if people are taught different viewpoints. It is called critical thinking, something, once again, liberals do not do.

If all theories deserve to be taught, then how about holocaust revisionism in history class? Should we teach that uncritically alongside the mainstream view of WWII history? If not, then how can you call yourself a conservative? ;-)

[whershey]

I don't think anyone has said accept all of ID or none, if anything what's being said is accept all of Darwinism there is no other possible answer. That's no different then the way Galileo was treated by the church. Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory, it's become at the least a philosophy of life and for some a religion.