Posted on 03/30/2009 12:58:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The New York Times got the preview story wrong, and the Washington Post editorial writer probably was too rushed to question the charges of "creationism" coming from the National Center for Science Education, the Darwin-only lobby. So this week's important decisions by the Texas Board of Education (TBOE) on how to teach evolution were predicated in the media by the big question of whether teachers should provide both "strengths and weaknesses" of Darwin's theory. Those words might sound benign, readers were told, but they really are "code words" (take the press' word for it) for creationism and religion.
To the media left, any questioning of Darwin is reserved for denizens of Dogpatch.
So, what did the TBOE do? Well, it turns out that they are fairly adroit politicians. They did remove language providing for "strengths and weaknesses" and then added new language--quite a lot of it--providing that students will learn, for example, to "analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations…including examining all sides of scientific evidence… so as to encourage critical thinking by the student." Perfect! A policy distinction without a difference! In fact, the new standards are just fine, an improvement, in fact. Now teachers can tell the kids about the scientific evidence in a variety of fields that seems to contradict the Darwinian account as well as the supposed evidence in support.
Once again the NCSE was too-smart-by-half. It ran blogs making fun of religion, while organizing public speakers who gave fulsome testimony to their Christian faith and how compatible it is with "evolution" (meaning Darwinian evolution). To the purists like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers it probably makes them look like toadies.
In the end, the rhetoric meant to evoke fundamentalist cranks was mixed with pious statements doing the very kind of religious posturing the Darwinists project onto their foes, and reminding me of the church scenes from Blazing Saddles. It all backfired.
By demonizing specific words--and making the elimination of them the test of "science"--the NCSE and its state distributor, the Orwellian-named Texas Freedom Network, simply allowed the Board to do the obvious word shuffle. Okay, no "strengths and weakness, " but instead, we'll pass similar ideas in different words, and everyone will be happy. Except, of course, the NCSE and the TFN.
Don't expect the media to figure this out from the NCSE Talking Points memo, but the insiders get the picture. Dawkins must be enjoying a caustic chuckle at the expense of the NCSE.
You never got any scientist “pedigreed” or otherwise signed on to FR willing to debate the subject, posted a debate thread, or pinged me to it.
It is an impossibility for me to “back out” of a situation you never actually set up.
But again you seem more interested in playing the nutter “nobody will debate me” game than in actually organizing a debate or continuing the debate that you were losing so convincingly on this thread. I guess when you are losing so bad the only tactic you know is to challenge to a debate, not set up a debate, and then make accusations of people backing out of a debate you never set up.
Well you successfully changed the subject from how Osama bin Lauden is a ISLAMIC cleric, not a biology teacher; how Islamic Jihad is an Islamic terrorist organization interested in jihad, and how Yasser Arafat had the Quran read over his grave, quoted the Quran, and extolled the virtues of martyrdom for Allah.
Just out of curiosity, Allmendream...Are you still interested in debating Duesberg (from start to finish)? If you are, I’ll see if I can set something up again. It will be a time limited debate, say 3 hours, where you guys will debate live. I’m not sure what Duesberg’s schedule looks like, but if you are still interested, I’ll see if I can set it up.
==I guess when you are losing so bad the only tactic you know is to challenge to a debate
What the heck are you talking about. You’re getting your rear-end kicked, as usual. I went through your silly quiz and proved you wrong on a number of them just doing a quick internet search. And btw, you were so roundly defeated by my responses, you never even bothered to reply. You might want to invest in some reality pills, my FRiend.
What religious ceremony was performed over his grave?
What religious tradition did he come from?
What God did he tell people they would go to after “martyrdom” bombings?
As I have said to you previously. Get him signed on to FR, post a thread, ping me to it; and I will debate - beginning to end.
But are you backing out of your defense of Islamic terrorism so soon? I much prefer that as a debate topic. What is stopping you from posting the debate thread?
It seems evident that you wish to keep moving the target while changing the subject, never actually setting anything up, and then accusing people of backing out of a debate thread that never existed.
What is “materialist” about the Islamic terrorists stated goal of setting up sharia law?
What is “materialist” about insisting that all land ever under the control of Islam be reconquered?
What is “materialist” about promising paradise and 72 virgins to those who kill themselves in your service?
Don’t worry yourself, AMD. The I will post the debate thread so you can defend Islamo-Communism very soon. I will also be contacting Dr. Duesberg to see if he will be willing to agree to debate you AGAIN. If he agrees, what three hour block of time would be best for you?
I can devote any week day night after 4:30 pm West Coast time to debating Duesburg.
Nice to see you again AndrewC.
I missed the blue text. ;)
You obviously know zero about the goals and METHODS of communist revolution.
What is “religious” about Stalin promoting the Russian Orthodox Church during WW II?
What is “religious” about Marxist-Leninist Arafat adapting the symbols of Islam to inflame the Muslim world against Israel?
What is “religious” about the communist IRA killing protestants (and Catholics, for that matter) in Ireland and Britain?
What is “religious” about so-called Catholic Liberation Theologians championing communist revolution in Latin America and Africa?
The foes who we face are Islamic and terrorists. Their religion is Islam, their tactic is terrorism, their goal is sharia law, reconquest of all lands once ruled by Islam, and to go to paradise with Allah.
Osama bin Lauden is a Islamic cleric, not a biology teacher. He is motivated by the Quran, not “on the Origin of Species”.
Nice to see you also. I hope that everything is well with you and yours. God bless you. We may disagree, but I really do respect you.
Think whatever you like, Allmendream. It will all come out in the debate thread. I’ll ping you when it’s up. And do see if you can use your evo-influence to get the fidgety Mr. Lawyer to show up too.
So it seems obvious that you would rather discuss debating this subject than actually discuss this subject.
What is the matter?
No easy answer for why Islamic terrorists recruit each other by talking about Islam, why they meet and conspire in Mosques to follow the religious edicts of an Islamic cleric who calls for terrorist attacks against us, the institution of sharia law, and the reconquest of all lands once ruled by Islam?
Like I said, I will ping you to the debate thread when it’s up. I’m sure you will do your best to deflect attention away from the communist roots of Islamist terrorism.
I already said that while we backed Israel the Soviets backed the Arabs. Just because the Soviets backed the Arabs doesn't mean that they gave up Islam.
Islamic terrorists speak the language of Islam to recruit terrorists. They issue religious edicts that say why Islam tells them to kill westerners. They promise those who “martyr” themselves paradise with 72 virgins. They say they are involved in a “jihad” or holy war.
I do not deny that many of these groups received aid and comfort from the Soviets, or that some few actually were dedicated Socialists and/or Marxists.
What you are attempting to deny (but now admitted) was that terrorists who claim Islam are in fact, as you called them now, “Islamic Terrorists”.
There is nothing “secular” about their aims, their motivation, or their rhetoric.
I didn’t say Islamic, I said Islamist. You might want to research the difference before the debate thread is up. And yes, I still claim that many of the Islamist terror groups were started and are controlled by revolutionary materialists. That’s not to say that all of them are, but many of them are, and almost all of them are influenced by this revolutionary ideology. But let’s save it for the debate thread, shall we?
Whenever.
Thank you.
I respect you as well.
God bless you and yours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.