Replies

Don't you think that the subject matter being taught is germane to whether that subject matter should be taught? Are you really that dense?
***When freepers run for the school board and help determine the curriculum of the school, are they required to be PhDs in each area of inquiry to decide on what the curriculum should be? No. Therefore the level of knowledge required is not necessarily PhD level biochemistry nuances, and I choose not to go down that path. George did it, the average school board member does it, and so can I. Look at Math. Does the average school board member know anything about differential equations? Probably not, but it doesn’t stop them from deciding on what’s best for kids’ math curriculum. Why do you try to impose this level of authority in subject matter on average freepers when that is not required of school boards, the president, nor other policy makers, and especially in such a controversial subject matter?

"I'm here to discuss social policy, not the minute details of a theory that I don't care much about. I know as much as others who make policy know about this subject."….That's a scary thought.
***I see some of what I’m saying is starting to sink in. A scary thought. Kind of like 12 jurors on the OJ trial ignoring all that DNA evidence. Those 12 jurors have 12 votes in making policy just like 12 PhD biochemists. The real scary thought is that there are a lot more OJ level jurors than PhD biochem guys. Now that some reality is starting to kick in, what would be best for teaching our children about evolution/ID? I think it is an advanced theory that should be reserved for advanced bio and philosophy, and we should stick to bringing those 12 jurors’ kids up to speed on the basics for this next generation. They need it. A real scary thought is that once the evo crowd realizes the bind that they’re in, they won’t focus on all 12 of those kids, but only 2/7 of them so that they can regain a majority in the policy making realm. A sad form of educational elitism.

You are arguing that your total ignorance of the subject makes you just as qualified to discuss whether it should be taught or not than those who actually have studied it. Incredible.
***How would that look? Like this? I am totally Ignorant of Math and History, so I don’t think that anyone else should know about it either. I suppose that’s what it would look like. But that’s not what I wrote, so that means you’re using a straw argument. And furthermore, the subjects of Math & History don’t have the spiritual vacuity that the haps side of evo/abio does at this time. What exactly are the requirements for someone to discuss social policy? Are they written somewhere on Patrick Henry’s page? Is it a special secret decoder ring-enabled site here on Free Republic that I haven’t been aware of? The current requirement for someone on a school board is that they care enough to show up and get elected. If FR suddenly has a higher requirement than the average school board, I would like to know. If not, then you’re imposing an artificial encumbrance to discussion of this policy issue.

Not at all. It's being kind.
***Then allow me to say that you are too kind.

"And if someone like me can't understand the theory, why are you folks trying to teach it to our kids? "…So anything YOU can't understand shouldn't be taught? Your ignorance should be everybody's?
***Once again, some straw argumentation. Did I say don’t teach ANYTHING I can’t understand? No. I had trouble with thermodynamics, but that doesn’t mean I suggest that others shouldn’t learn it. And nowhere do I say that evo should NOT be taught, just that we should limit the negative spiritual effects that this soulless philosophy has on youngsters. I agree that evo/abio should be taught side by side with ID, I don’t see the harm in it, I see it would be good for society and the net result would be good for most people involved.

"That's not what I want, so stop trying to read my mind. Just read my posts."… I have. You want science by poll. Stop hiding from your arguments.
***Back & forth, same thing…. BORING. Tell me what I think of my neighbor and I will give you the necessary credit needed to read my mind. Tell me what I want for dinner and I will listen to what you have to say about what I want regarding this issue. Better yet, why don't you just read what I wrote instead of this baloney.

"The plain and simple fact is, this is how some young evolutionists process the moral implications of the theory."… Some people took Einstein's theory of relativity to mean that all morality is relative. Was it Einstein's fault that some people are stupid?
***Ok, let’s work with that analogy. There was this kid named John Aristotle Phillips who wrote "Mushroom: The Story of the A-Bomb Kid." He designed his own atom bomb. Now, was it Einstein’s fault? No. Is there something so inherently dangerous to the subject matter that it demands legitimate control so that society does not get harmed? Yes. I see the haps/evo stuff as a spiritual form of this story, and I think we need to limit the negative effects that can result from it.

Just because some people who know next to nothing about evolution completely misunderstand the implications doesn't in any way mean that there is any problem with the theory on a scientific level.
***Was there anything wrong with Phillips’ study on the scientific level? No, and yet we see the need to control it and at the time to keep it out of Pakistani hands. I see the need to control this spiritually dangerous teaching that might possibly radiate amoral behavior.

Why should we lie to our children that there is a scientific controversy because people like you are ignorant?
***I’m not lying to my children, I do see a scientific controversy and I suspect so did GWB when he came out with his policy. There is also a political controversy mixed in with it. They are becoming more interlaced with each passing day.

It has nothing to do with their behavior. It is not applied to their behavior.
***And again I say COPOUT. There are obvious spiritual and social implications to the theory and those implications won’t go away if you just keep poking your head in the sand.

Just because it is too sophisticated for YOU, doesn't mean that the average 12 year old won't get it.
***Wow, really? You honestly think that the average 12 year old can process this kind of information in an edifying way? The average ADULT doesn’t know what a molecule is, and you think the average 12 year old can mentally wrestle with this spiritually dangerous philosophy? You have a very high opinion of the average 12 year old, and if that were the case I might agree with you. But since the average 12 year old can’t find Germany on a map, I don’t think they’re ready for this stuff.

Your smearing of evolution by associating it with child molesters and now Islamo-terrorists is a disgusting display, indicative of the paucity of your evidence (and very telling about your character).
***Bringing out character as a subject matter without addressing the points mentioned is a form of ad hominem argumentation. I was very explicit when I pointed out that the NAMBLA stuff is hyperbole. You're starting to get a little shrill, an interesting sign. You might want to reduce your caffeine intake and add fiber to your diet. And I didn’t ASSOCIATE the two, I was using ANALOGY. From Dictionary.com…

a•nal•o•gy P Pronunciation Key ( -n l -j )
n. pl. a•nal•o•gies
1.
a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
b. A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.
2. Biology. Correspondence in function or position between organs of dissimilar evolutionary origin or structure.
3. A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.
4. Linguistics. The process by which words or morphemes are re-formed or created on the model of existing grammatical patterns in a language, often leading to greater regularity in paradigms, as evidenced by helped replacing holp and holpen as the past tense and past participle of help on the model of verbs such as yelp, yelped, yelped.

7 entries found for associate.
as•so•ci•ate P Pronunciation Key ( -s sh - t , -s -)
v. as•so•ci•at•ed, as•so•ci•at•ing, as•so•ci•ates
v. tr.
1. To join as a partner, ally, or friend.
2. To connect or join together; combine.
3. To connect in the mind or imagination: “I always somehow associate Chatterton with autumn” (John Keats).

v. intr.
1. To join in or form a league, union, or association. See Synonyms at join.

________________________________________
[Middle English associaten, from Latin associ re, associ t- : ad-, ad- + socius, companion; see sekw-1 in Indo-European Roots.]

Unless you have something of substance to critique about the theory, none of your opinions count for anything.
***A form of appeal to authority fallacy. Only those high priests worthy enough may engage in discourse on this subject, all other cretins must stay silent.

"When freepers run for the school board and help determine the curriculum of the school, are they required to be PhDs in each area of inquiry to decide on what the curriculum should be?"

No, and, so what? They ARE required to actually talk about the subjects they are dealing with and not just hand-wave the subjects aside. If the school board is debating which Math text to use, don't you think they should debate the merits of the competing texts? You don't want to do that; you just want to say *Evolution make people do bad things, evolution bad* without ever talking about whether or not evolution is true.

"Why do you try to impose this level of authority in subject matter on average freepers when that is not required of school boards, the president, nor other policy makers, and especially in such a controversial subject matter?"

A basic understanding of the subject and a willingness to discuss some of the details of that subject are a definite requirement. If school boards and other policy makers don't want to talk about the specifics of a theory they appose, then they have no leg to stand on.

"The real scary thought is that there are a lot more OJ level jurors than PhD biochem guys."

They'll be a lot more if we lie to students and teach them that creationism is a scientific theory.

"Like this? I am totally Ignorant of Math and History, so I don’t think that anyone else should know about it either. I suppose that’s what it would look like. But that’s not what I wrote, so that means you’re using a straw argument."

No, that is exactly what you wrote. You said,

" "And if someone like me can't understand the theory, why are you folks trying to teach it to our kids? ""

Your ignorance should not be the level we strive to.

"And furthermore, the subjects of Math & History don’t have the spiritual vacuity that the haps side of evo/abio does at this time."

Explain yourself. You keep saying how horrible evolution is for morality yet you haven't shown where in the theory it makes any claims to be a moral guide.

"What exactly are the requirements for someone to discuss social policy? "

A willingness to actually discuss the policy under consideration. You refuse.

""And if someone like me can't understand the theory, why are you folks trying to teach it to our kids? "…So anything YOU can't understand shouldn't be taught? Your ignorance should be everybody's?
***Once again, some straw argumentation. Did I say don’t teach ANYTHING I can’t understand? No"

Yes, you did. Read your own words.

"I had trouble with thermodynamics, but that doesn’t mean I suggest that others shouldn’t learn it."

Yes you did. You said ""And if someone like me can't understand the theory, why are you folks trying to teach it to our kids? ". Just because you're ignorant, doesn't mean our kids have to be too.

"And nowhere do I say that evo should NOT be taught, just that we should limit the negative spiritual effects that this soulless philosophy has on youngsters."

What affects? You refuse to discuss the theory, why should we take your word there are *negative spiritual effects*. Explain them, with reference to what the theory says.

"Better yet, why don't you just read what I wrote instead of this baloney. "

Ok, you want science by polls. By votes. You want people who don't wish to know anything about a theory decide whether that theory is sound or not. You pride yourself in not caring about the science. You think it is a good thing that most people don't know what evolution is, and you are working to make sure even less do. Your denials are baloney.

"He designed his own atom bomb. Now, was it Einstein’s fault? No. Is there something so inherently dangerous to the subject matter that it demands legitimate control so that society does not get harmed? Yes"

No, there isn't. You want to limit the teaching of the theory of relativity, you do it with your kids. Let the rest of the countries children know about it.

Please tell us, what other theories that you have very little knowledge of do you deem too *dangerous* to be taught?

"Was there anything wrong with Phillips’ study on the scientific level? No, and yet we see the need to control it and at the time to keep it out of Pakistani hands. I see the need to control this spiritually dangerous teaching that might possibly radiate amoral behavior."

What spiritually dangerous teaching? E=mc^2?

"I’m not lying to my children, I do see a scientific controversy and I suspect so did GWB when he came out with his policy. "

You refuse to expand on the *scientific* controversy, after repeated pressing. Put up or shut up. That's the scientific method. BTW, Bush's science adviser has come out against teaching ID.

"And again I say COPOUT. There are obvious spiritual and social implications to the theory and those implications won’t go away if you just keep poking your head in the sand."

And you saying there are *spiritual problems* without addressing how specifically the theory produces them is just smoke blowing from your butt.

"You honestly think that the average 12 year old can process this kind of information in an edifying way? The average ADULT doesn’t know what a molecule is, and you think the average 12 year old can mentally wrestle with this spiritually dangerous philosophy?"

The average kid is a lot smarter then you. Don't use your admitted ignorance as a yardstick for what other's can do.

"Bringing out character as a subject matter without addressing the points mentioned is a form of ad hominem argumentation. "

Do you know how ironic your above statement is?

"I was very explicit when I pointed out that the NAMBLA stuff is hyperbole."

Yet you just happened to bring them in to the conversation.
Riiiight.

"And I didn’t ASSOCIATE the two, I was using ANALOGY."

Yes, a patently disgusting and ludicrous analogy.

"Unless you have something of substance to critique about the theory, none of your opinions count for anything.
***A form of appeal to authority fallacy. Only those high priests worthy enough may engage in discourse on this subject, all other cretins must stay silent."

Nonsense. I appealed to no authority. You HAVEN'T engaged in discourse on this subject, you have evaded the core of the debate, which is the scientific merits of evolution and ID. Utterly pathetic.