“(me)Well, I’m glad you agree with that. Is there some reason you think they aren’t being inquisitive?
(you)Why do you ask such a question?”
—Because you had just said:
“You’re singing to the choir when saying scientists should be naturally inquisitive. THIS is the entire point!”
I took that to mean that the point of your argument was that scientists should be inquisitive - which seemed like a strange thing to argue unless you thought scientists weren’t being inquisitive. But maybe I misread you.
“You don’t follow along very well do you.”
—sometimes, with some people.
“Assuming you did go to dissentfromdarwin.org...
and assuming you read their statement “it deserves to be heard”.
What then do YOU think they’re talking about?”
—I guess we just have trouble following each other, because I thought I had explained what I thought they were talking about in the next few sentences:
“That the scientific method calls for skepticism? That there’s more to evolution than mutation and selection? Those things are general knowledge and are taught in science class.”
That would seem to be what they believe should be heard, since that’s what in the statement they have people sign:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
If so, than they should be very happy to know that everything in the statement is common knowledge and taught in science class.
The other possibility that they may mean is the statement just above the “It deserves to be heard” which is “There Is Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.”
But I would say that that’s common knowledge also. In fact, I would say that there is far less scientific dissent than most people think.
But it’s very odd that the primary purpose of the site seems to be to have people sign a statement that has nothing to do with dissent from Darwinism. I’m hardly a dissenter of Darwinism, and I agree wholeheartedly with the statement. I’m not sure if there’s an evolutionary scientist on earth that doesn’t agree with the statement. Darwin himself said that forces other than selection and mutation were involved in the evolution of life, so he would have been a signer too.
“Just because godless liberals have multiple hang-ups with God doesn’t mean they have a right to hijack the scientific debate and shut it down ala the NEA, ACLU etc. etc. etc.”
—How has the debate been hijacked or shut down? Is this another reference to science class being used to teach the scientific method and the leading scientific theories?
No, the point of my argument was scientists are naturally inquisitive, as Edward Peltzer so nicely illustrates, and the conservative/creationists here on FR understand (singing to the choir) but when he is inquisitive, he gets smeared and called a religious kook by the evo-liberals here on FR and elsewhere.
“If so, than they should be very happy to know that everything in the statement is common knowledge and taught in science class”.
SO do you really and truly think these scientists that actually work in the various fields of science they represent are really just of the modern day black helicopter crowd? I mean they just think there’s some made up sky is falling attack on them, their worldview and they don’t know what they’re talking about when they say “it deserves to be heard”? And this is muchado about nothing?
Some people say Ben Stein was just making money off of people in “No Intelligence Allowed”, like the various creation museums btw, and there really isn’t a banning of those that dissent.
Does this include you?
I used to not pay too much attention like you, then I began to notice the various culture wars: Republican vs. democrat, liberal vs. conservative, secular vs. Judeo-Christian values, and the books and articles written by various people, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh’s brother, Ann Coulter, Franklin Graham, his sister and various other conservative folks...addressing these “culture wars”.
(this IS Free Republic after all, backing up a bit, are you even familiar with conservatism, and these conservatives???)
And then, as I began to be educated about the left’s tactics and the antics of people like Michael Newdow, I began noticing more in the immediate world around me. The theory put into practice.
Like the Georgia ACLU threatening the school board my kids go to to remove Christmas from the school calendar or face a lawsuit.
Or the kneejerk liberal reaction of a kid allergic to peanuts getting an ice cream with peanuts and the cafeteria staff being held accountable, (as they should) while the child, knowing she couldn’t have peanuts ordered them anyway, putting her own life at risk while implicating the lady in the cafeteria was NOT held accountable; and the principal banning all peanuts, no more PBJ’s allowed on school grounds, etc. etc. etc. (Obviosuly this failed and was a monumental waste of time, etc. and a stupid response.)
Outside my immediate area I began to notice Christmas trees, indeed all things Christmas being banned in the name of tolerance.
Towns having to change their logos because they might contain crosses in them, or something “offensive”...crosses banned from cemeteries...crosses banned from inside chapels...it all seemed so surreal, but nevertheless, the more I learned the more appalled I became because it’s true.
And of course we come to the subject here, creation vs. evolution, liberals calling anything that criticizes evolution a religious attack on science. Liberals have hijacked this theory and it’s not even debatable.
So the issue is, do American citizens deserve the right to teach their children as they see fit with public funds?
My position is allow creation taught alongside evolution.
Students that learn both in private or home school settings perform quite well in science. They understand the science just fine, as do the scientists at dissentfromdarwin.org.
Sooner or later this attack on our Judeo-Christian heritage/culture will have to be addressed by the SCOTUS, and public education will have to be addressed as well.
It’s also no debate the liberal secular model of education is an abject failure.
“If so, than they should be very happy to know that everything in the statement is common knowledge and taught in science class”.
It’s one thing to be misinformed but to spread around such blatant falsehoods like this needs to be addressed.
Are you familiar with the Georgia school board (not mine btw) that placed stickers on the science texts explaining evolution was a theory and not a fact and these concerned parents were sued to have the stickers removed?
You see it’s not as you assert at all. Not even close. Not only is it NOT common knowledge, but it’s a dangerous indoctrination in place of education with the further indoctrination that nothing’s wrong when there very much IS something very wrong...AND it’s NOT taught in science class.