Skip to comments.
‘Healthy skepticism’ bill appears to be ailing [Intelligent Design in Missouri]
Kansas City Star ^
| 02 April 2006
| KIT WAGAR and TIM HOOVER
Posted on 04/02/2006 9:35:52 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
2
posted on
04/02/2006 9:37:08 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
To: PatrickHenry
IB4TC. (In before the "chat.")
3
posted on
04/02/2006 9:40:40 AM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
To: PatrickHenry
...supernatural explanations for the origin of life...Exactly.
4
posted on
04/02/2006 9:41:37 AM PDT
by
facedown
(Armed in the Heartland)
To: PatrickHenry
requiring instructors to spend at least half their time pointing out perceived flaws in the theory.At least half?
I've got a suggestion for parents worried about their kids learning about evolution:
Parochial school.
Home school.
Or just discuss it at home with them.
The battle to teach what is science and what is not is a guaranteed loser for the creationist side.
5
posted on
04/02/2006 10:02:08 AM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: PatrickHenry
I wonder who gets to choose the list of problems, and whether the list gets peer reviewed.
6
posted on
04/02/2006 10:04:15 AM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: PatrickHenry
Legislation backed by conservative Christian groups sought to discredit the theory of evolution by requiring instructors to spend at least half their time pointing out perceived flaws in the theory. If they spent half their time pointing out the flaws in evolution, and the other half pointing out the flaws in intelligent design then when would any teaching get done?
To: PatrickHenry
Otto Fajen, chief lobbyist for the Missouri affiliate of the National Education Association, said the bills intention is to water down science education, which bodes ill for the nations economic future. Yikes. I'd never thought I'd be on the same side of an issue as the teachers' unions. Oh well. Broken clocks and all that...
8
posted on
04/02/2006 10:16:42 AM PDT
by
curiosity
Comment #9 Removed by Moderator
To: PatrickHenry
Of course, I think we should spend a lot of time discussing some ""Healthy Skepticism" about the claims of fundamentalist Christians.
Like how about an example of a talking snake? Or even a fossil snake with vocal chords.
Or an example of a single human male who lives to 300 years and then has children, (even before the invention of Viagra.)
Or an equation of nuclear chemistry that can start with 100 lbs of woman and end up with a pillar of NaCl without blowing a chunk of earth out into space.
I wonder how a tower that collapsed could be the derivation of different languages.
Do they have a theory of that that can be tested? I wonder why they have a problem with modern Biology, when Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Medicine, Astronomy and Linguistics all point out how silly their ideas are.
We should demand some evidence of their claims and subject them to some rigorous testing. But why bother, they have no evidence and are simply silly.
10
posted on
04/02/2006 10:22:06 AM PDT
by
jexus
To: Dog Gone
"The battle to teach what is science and what is not is a guaranteed loser for the creationist side."
Really, the theory of evolution modeled upon the survival of the fittest, requiring the intervention of government programs has been the model followed by the public school system for decades. These children are taught they are just descendants of the rest of the global animals.
Too bad the evolutionists won't accept the test results of their system of education.
To: All
Here is a link to the
full text of the bill being discussed. It applies to all science courses, but it singles out biology (the only science dealt with specifically) with this provision:
If a theory or hypothesis of biological origins is taught, a critical analysis of such theory or hypothesis shall be taught in a substantive amount.
12
posted on
04/02/2006 10:50:12 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
To: PatrickHenry
requiring instructors to spend at least half their time pointing out perceived flaws in the theory.
It's really annoying when ignorant conservative politicians make stupid proposals making all conservatives look like scientifically illiterate boobs.
13
posted on
04/02/2006 11:18:14 AM PDT
by
ml1954
(NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
To: PatrickHenry
In related news, Missouri pubbies vote to repeal the law of gravity.
14
posted on
04/02/2006 11:35:35 AM PDT
by
MonroeDNA
(Look for the union label--on the bat crashing through your windshield!)
To: ml1954
It's really annoying when ignorant conservative politicians make stupid proposals making all conservatives look like scientifically illiterate boobs. Or perhaps they think that the majority of their constituency is composed of scientifically illiterate boobs.
15
posted on
04/02/2006 11:38:26 AM PDT
by
balrog666
(Irrational beliefs inspire irrational posts.)
To: jexus
1. God did it.
2. God did it.
3. God did it.
4. God did it.
5. God did it.
Understand? If not, you will burn for eternity in hellfire and limestone, or brimstone, or something.
If you have a problem with it, talk to the burning bush. It speaks, too.
16
posted on
04/02/2006 11:38:55 AM PDT
by
MonroeDNA
(Look for the union label--on the bat crashing through your windshield!)
To: PatrickHenry
To me, the wording in that bill implies that science cannot be trusted...
Information that appears to be verified empirical data, but is not, shall be identified to distinguish it as separate from verified empirical data.
Since when is unverified empirical data presented as verified in a high school science class?
Teacher classroom instruction shall use the following best practices to support the objective teaching of scientific information and minimize dogmatism while promoting student inquiry, healthy skepticism, and understanding:
Since when is 'dogmatism' an issue in high school science classes?
When information other than verified empirical data is taught representing current scientific thought such as theory or hypothesis regarding phenomena that occur in the future or that occurred previous to written history, a critical analysis of such information shall be taught in a substantive amount.
'that occurred previous to written history' covers an awful lot of science that is now required to be critically analyzed.
This bill sounds like it's been written from the YEC playbook.
17
posted on
04/02/2006 11:45:58 AM PDT
by
ml1954
(NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
To: balrog666
Or perhaps they think that the majority of their constituency is composed of scientifically illiterate boobs.
Think they can tell the difference?
18
posted on
04/02/2006 11:48:20 AM PDT
by
ml1954
(NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
To: Just mythoughts
Really, the theory of evolution modeled upon the survival of the fittest, requiring the intervention of government programs has been the model followed by the public school system for decades.
The theory of evolution is not, in any way, modelled on a requirement of government programs. In fact, governmnet programs are neither an element of the theory nor a logical outgrowth of the theory. I do not know where you have obtained your information, but it is clearly not from an informed source.
19
posted on
04/02/2006 11:49:24 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
Comment #20 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson