THIS is a serious candidate for President? by Niki2

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Meanwhile Great Britain just passed a law banning the teaching of "intelligent design" in science classes in UK free schools.

That's not to say they banned teaching it outright; they just banned teaching it AS SCIENCE, because it clearly isn't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 4:50 AM

This is another bad mark for Britain. The theory may be wrong, but most of what is taught in school is wrong. I worry more about a recent US move to ban the questioning of theories in the US. It's a sweeping movement, using ID as an excuse. It's a really scary concept.

Bachmann doesn't believe this stuff, she's playing to an ignorant base. Politicians lie all the time for votes, on both sides. I'm not sure this is news.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 4:56 AM

STORYMARK

Labeling a fairy tale "not science" is part of an insidious plot to ban people from questioning theories?

Oooooooooooooh..... kaaaaaaaaaaaay.......

Thanks,
got my laugh for the mornin'.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 5:52 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
most of what is taught in school is wrong

...what can I say...

I agree about Bachmann, however...probably. Given how MANY insane things she’s said through the years, tho’, I have my doubts.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 7:32 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

"Let the students decide." Huh?

"We don't need no education, we don't need no thought control."

Yeah, let 'em study drugs, sex, sports, movies and video games. Anything they WANT, but nothing that they NEED, nothing that's any work. Extend this principle to spelling, grammar, history, ALL science, Math, all Literature.

But MAKE SURE that they get Social/ political / Religious indoctrination by which ever group is in power right now.

The collapse of post-Rennaissance Enlightened civilization is right around the corner. Back to the Dark Ages, maybe the cavemen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
"Let the students decide." Huh?

"We don't need no education, we don't need no thought control."

Yeah, let 'em study drugs, sex, sports, movies and video games. Anything they WANT, but nothing that they NEED, nothing that's any work. Extend this principle to spelling, grammar, history, ALL science, Math, all Literature.

But MAKE SURE that they get Social/ political / Religious indoctrination by which ever group is in power right now.

The collapse of post-Rennaissance Enlightened civilization is right around the corner. Back to the Dark Ages, maybe the cavemen.

NOBC, I think you misread Rappy's remarks. He said the idea of "let the children decide" is laughable.

He's got a point. Still, it's best if we can find ways to teach children without them really even realizing that they're being taught - they're having fun, and only realize later that they actually LEARNED valuable lessons.

By the way, DT, ID isn't banned from these schools; as I stated, it's banned from being taught AS SCIENCE, IN SCIENCE CLASSES. But that's only because it's not science. I mean, as Rap said, you wouldn't teach astronomy or alchemy in science class, would you?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 12:49 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
"Let the students decide." Huh?

"We don't need no education, we don't need no thought control."

Yeah, let 'em study drugs, sex, sports, movies and video games. Anything they WANT, but nothing that they NEED, nothing that's any work. Extend this principle to spelling, grammar, history, ALL science, Math, all Literature.

But MAKE SURE that they get Social/ political / Religious indoctrination by which ever group is in power right now.

The collapse of post-Rennaissance Enlightened civilization is right around the corner. Back to the Dark Ages, maybe the cavemen.

NOBC, I think you misread Rappy's remarks. He said the idea of "let the children decide" is laughable.

Actually I got it from the body of the article, where they quoted her, word for word. I DO think I took it out of context, the full sentence goes something like, " put all science on the table and let the students decide." Darn, a perfectly good rant, wasted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 2:17 PM

Sorry, NOBC - I thought you were snarking on Rappy.

But yes, by all means, put all the SCIENCE on the table. "Intelligent Design" ain't science, though. "Then a miracle occurs" is not valid scientific theory.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 2:23 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is another bad mark for Britain. The theory may be wrong...

Creationism is not a THEORY. It is an UNSUPPORTED HYPOTHESIS, and a weak one at that. A theory is an evidence-based scientific model. You should really know better, shame on you.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 2:37 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

You know who made learning fun ? Carl Sagan. He'd present facts and explain the wonders of science, w/ out it being dry, boring or stale. Robert Bakker does that to, for Paleontology. And there are others, in other fields, who present their subjects in every bit as interesting and informative ways...

It's not the subject matter which blows in school, it's how it's being presented. Sure, it can't ALL be smoke and fireworks, but hell, the education in this country has sucked, for generations, and no one wants to do a damn thing about it. Really pisses me off, at the countless years wasted on young minds, who could be far more motivated and may actually LEARN something... but no.

We mustn't over stimulate young minds. Das ist verboten!

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 2:46 PM

I don't want to divert the topic too much, but I heard an interesting thing concerning US education on NPR a day or so ago. Turns out, we've been improving by a significant margin since the seventies. Around that time, we measured near the bottom of the international community. Of course, the test and measurements may not have been very fair, considering who was tested and what not, but even with all that in mind, this past decade we've tested in the middle of the pack. I know, it's not the top and not something we should brag about, but I think the significant rise in performance could mean we are on to something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is another bad mark for Britain. The theory may be wrong...

Creationism is not a THEORY. It is an UNSUPPORTED HYPOTHESIS, and a weak one at that. A theory is an evidence-based scientific model. You should really know better, shame on you.

I could make a better case for it than the people who came up with it. I think there's actually a possibility in some ways that it's closer to the truth than the random mutation theory. There's some pretty strong evidence that our genetic code was pre-written, and is unlocked through time.

However, I happen to believe it was written by parasites seeking to create a better host. Their lord does work in mysterious ways.

But that's not the point. You have a working head on your shoulders. Use it.

The point is whether or not dogma will be allowed to be questioned in the classroom. I went to a solid, okay, patchy, five years of schooling, and I can't say that anything I learned was accurate. Then I took a lot of college classes, and the information was, in places, worse.

We need people to think. Given the proper tools, everyone should be able to come up with Darwin's theory of evolution on their own. Darwin didn't come up with it because it was some radically obscure notion that only a super-genius would think of; he came up with it because he had accumulated more data than the rest of the world knew.

Once you set a precedent for dogmatic teaching, education is utterly doomed. Okay, it's *more* utterly doomed than it already was, being as it is a day-prison where someone talks at you and okay, I'll skip the rant... and I've seen the british education system, particularly on science is it weak.

It's like the holocaust laws in the EU. I despise these laws, partly precisely *because* many of my family members were killed in the holocaust. I've found much in my research on the topic that casts a lot of doubt on the story, and shifts blame from "only germany" (they were yes, very guilty) but also to other groups, nations, corporations, etc. Also, the victim profile looks a little different. Not everyone was a civilian, and not everyone was jewish, and the actual death toll was around 11 million, and tons more stuff that if I were in the EU would be an offense to say.

Dogma is dangerous.

What you're looking at is Christian dogma, which ID is a lame attempt to defend. What you're not seeing is Darwinian dogma which is potentially far more dangerous. It doesn't matter that Darwin is right and ID is wrong, what matters is whether or not people are allowed to think and figure that out for themselves.

These two topics are not totally unrelated. Dogmatic Darwinianism is, by itself, dangerous and easy to manipulate, and doing so is a solid part of eugenics, and was a solid part of the holocaust.

But consider if this dogmatic approach to science is allowed to spread under the same or similar pretext...

Dogmatic Big Bang is just another creation myth.

Dogmatic relativity would still reject quantum mechanics, string theory and chaos.

What if I were to teach in the UK and present arguments that human DNA was a string of assembled strands copied from various life forms to whom we are not at all related, like lysogenic viral DNA, macrophages, and conjugated DNA from various micro-organisms, including DNA stole from other complex life forms such as octupii that we aren't related to either? That investigation could be banned, under this law.

Now, use a little imagination. Abstract a little.

What about any subject of science, or for that matter, any subject, that the british govt. thinks is wrong, or, any subject that british govt, or any govt., happens to disagree with, or not want being taught to the masses, could be banned by propping up an ugly poster child?

You don't really believe that the rise of creationism came from the christian right, do you? It has the govt's fingerprints all over it. So does the Westboro baptist church. This isn't about faith and it's not about science. It's about silencing dissent. They created bad information that they figured we would all disagree with, and wouldn't mind having silenced, and now they're silencing it, a legal precedence they can use to silence all dissent.

ETA: Rap, I think you just posted something Frem would agree with

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 4:17 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think there's actually a possibility in some ways that it's closer to the truth than the random mutation theory. There's some pretty strong evidence that our genetic code was pre-written, and is unlocked through time.

Pre-written? Really? No. There's some useless stuff floating in our gene pool. Huntington's disease is one example, and it can't be explained by the desires of parasites or a creator being. Sickle-cell is a useful trait that can turn into a serious condition; that one can't be explained, either. The variance of eye color is entirely random and unnecessary for anything and is most readily explained by random mutation that was pleasing enough to potential mates that it propagated. (unlike the variance in skin color, which is logically explained by the need to balance sun exposure with vitamin D requirements) Can you cite any such things that support a model of pre-written code and can in no way be explained by the current model of observed evidence? If you can, get it peer-reviewed and published, and then we'll be able to discuss it as a theory.
Evolution through mutation has also been observed. Certainly not the entire history of our own evolution, but the process itself has been seen in bacteria, in fruit flies, and in viruses that some scientists don't consider to even be alive. Evolution is thus a working scientific model, with a great deal of evidence and observation. Pre-written coding is a hypothesis, by definition.

Quote:
What you're not seeing is Darwinian dogma which is potentially far more dangerous.

Yeah, I'm not seeing it because Darwin is questioned on a regular basis. His foundational theory has been expanded, altered, and built upon quite a bit since he wrote On the Origin of Species. There are entire books written on where Darwin was wrong, including doctoral theses. That's the funny thing about science and theories; they are open to update, where dogma is not. Those theoretical models change as new information becomes available. I'm currently in school, so let me assure you that whatever you might have thought was dogma in your classrooms has been updated. Even relativity has been reevaluated, updated, and questioned.

Quote:
What about any subject of science, or for that matter, any subject, that the british govt. thinks is wrong, or, any subject that british govt, or any govt., happens to disagree with, or not want being taught to the masses, could be banned by propping up an ugly poster child?

I'm not interested in your conjecture on the British government or any other government. I addressed your gross misuse of the term 'theory.' If you're going to talk about anything scientific, and expect to be taken seriously by anyone who has read a book about science, misusing such an important term will instantly undermine you, just like it undermines Bachmann and any other politician that uses the phrase, "just a theory" to describe evolutionary science.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 5:17 PM

PR,

Me publishing what is old hat wouldn't accomplish much. This was a major field of genetics research in the '90s. Your genetic code was pieced together from scraps of DNA taken from elsewhere using devices like reverse transcriptase. In fact, the research led in the direction that it's likely that the majority of code for everything now alive may be made up of DNA that predates the last snowball earth.

If you stop and think for a minute, it makes perfect sense: Which is going to evolve more rapidly:

1) The species that has to go through random mutations where a known 1 in a million ish is positive, and so millions of negative mutations not only bog down the gene pool, but make the evolution of low population species like marine mammals impossible?

OR

2) A species that has hundreds of thousands of perfectly functional genes that happen to be turned off, and turning them on through genetic variation or even diet change will prompt the rapid reactivation of said gene?

Gene switches, reverse transcriptase, and lysogensesis have been more convincingly demonstrated than random mutation for the positive developmental changes of large scale multicellular lifeforms.

I remember when this research first hit, it rocked the genetic engineering world. After it sunk in, it made perfect sense, and like all great discoveries, we were baffled that we had ever believed that complex lifeforms were the result of random mutation.

Oh, and huntington's isn't a novel gene, it's a mutation, it's two copies of a regular known gene. Many of these diseases are like that. Some cancers could be described as simply a massive mutation breakdown of the cellular DNA. Others are viral. Some lysogenically insert genes into your genome, that cause runaway cell lines. This is not helpful. However, you are like alive because you carry lysogenic macrophages. If you weren't, you probably would have died years ago from pneumonia.

Quote:
Yeah, I'm not seeing it because Darwin is questioned on a regular basis. His foundational theory has been expanded, altered, and built upon quite a bit since he wrote On the Origin of Species. There are entire books written on where Darwin was wrong, including doctoral theses. That's the funny thing about science and theories; they are open to update, where dogma is not. Those theoretical models change as new information becomes available. I'm currently in school, so let me assure you that whatever you might have thought was dogma in your classrooms has been updated. Even relativity has been reevaluated, updated, and questioned.

The snide arrogance is unbecoming. You know, of course, that I'm very well versed in this stuff, and all this does is make me very irritated at you.

That said, yes, obviously.

However, if you institute a policy of dogmatism, like the EU has done with the holocaust; that questioning will eventually stop.

The big bang was dragging into a corner for a while, as the neo-creationists get dominance. Now it's swinging the other way. Like all theories, it's incorrect. There's elements of truth to it, but many of the fundamental princples are logically flawed. The same is true of evolution, but that's, again, not the point. If you do not allow opposing ideas, idiocy will ensue.

Did you catch this nonsense here a couple weeks ago? There was a bill floating to make it illegal for any teacher to bring any material that challenged any accepted theory. It was proposed, surprise, by the socialist far left (neolibs et al), using, surprise, creationism and ID* as an excuse.

* (Which I have little doubt that they themselves wrote expressly for the purpose of this sort of thing)

Quote:

I'm not interested in your conjecture on the British government or any other government. I addressed your gross misuse of the term 'theory.' If you're going to talk about anything scientific, and expect to be taken seriously by anyone who has read a book about science, misusing such an important term will instantly undermine you, just like it undermines Bachmann and any other politician that uses the phrase, "just a theory" to describe evolutionary science.

This seemed unnecessarily hostile. Are you not interested in political ideas that conflict with yours? Wouldn't that be dogmatic?

Surely you don't think that creationism is science. This isn't about science, it's about the nature of education. The whole issue is about education, and none of it is about science. I was mentioning the history of our DNA because I thought it was ironic that these nimwits were closer than they thought, but also, the importance of being able to question dogma.

I wasn't talking about anything scientific, I was talking about creationism, or intelligent design. Okay, you don't like my calling it a theory. I have a theory, it could be bunnies. Is that not scientific enough for you? I'm surprised you don't jump all over me for using y'all, ending a sentence with a preposition. Seems like a dogmatic approach to language. Jes sayin.

What are you upset about, Michelle Bachmann being president? Don't worry, it's never going to happen. She's ranting to a christian base. What that base really wants is their children out of public school, because it's a leftie brainwashing prison system. That's why creationism exists, because the christian right was winning that argument, and so someone seeded it with an idea they knew they could defeat.

Sorry, I was just really annoyed. I humbly suggest using your head and hopefully a little imagination and see where dogmatism takes us.

Here's some things I learned in school:

Columbus discovered america and worked with the indians to make peace; and then he named america after his navigator (this is also not true, Albergio Vespucci renamed himself after America, a mainland name used by the Amerique indians. Haiti is the french spelling of Ayeti, the spanish spelling for what the Taino Arowaks called the country where columbus landed, and exterminated the locals through slave labor)

I also learned that our flag was designed by betsy ross to symbolize the colonies, not that it was already the flag because we inherited it from the east india company.

I learned that money came from the mint, and it was valued based on the metal in it, not that it was owned by a private corporation that printed it largely only on ledger books

I learned that the US soldiers rolled in with tanks and liberated Auschwitz, not that it was actually the Soviets.

I learned that Russians were evil, many mistaken ideas about the world, politics, history, as well as chemistry and physics, including that if you kept going east long enough, you'd find yourself going west. The teacher asked the class why it was, and I said "Because you got sick of going east, and turned around and went home," and the teacher got very cross and said "NO, the earth had not only a north and south pole, but an east and west pole." It turned out he was dead serious.

It's important that we think and question, not what we are told. I suspect it probably even helps if what we are told turns out to be demonstrably false. I've met no dumber people on this planet then those who were highly educated and had never questioned anything they were taught.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 6:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I don't want to divert the topic too much, but I heard an interesting thing concerning US education on NPR a day or so ago. Turns out, we've been improving by a significant margin since the seventies. Around that time, we measured near the bottom of the international community. Of course, the test and measurements may not have been very fair, considering who was tested and what not, but even with all that in mind, this past decade we've tested in the middle of the pack. I know, it's not the top and not something we should brag about, but I think the significant rise in performance could mean we are on to something.

Yup. And compare where we are now - with public education, of course - to where we were in 1900, when an average of less than SIX PERCENT of Americans had the equivalent of a high-school education. Now that number is at better than 85%, and has been around that number since the mid-80s.

Other nations have made great strides, and there is work to be done. But we've done some impressive stuff with public education. I'd dare say that most of the people posting here went to public schools.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 6:14 PM

By the way, in answer to the original post, NO, this is NOT a serious candidate for the presidency. So far, I've yet to see a serious Republican candidate for President. Ron Paul might come close, but his own party treats him as a joke, and no matter how many straw polls he wins, or by how big a margin, he doesn't get the nomination, no how, no way.

The day Ron Paul gets the nomination for the GOP is the day I'll eat my hat.

Of course, I've also yet to see much of a serious candidate for the Democrats as well. We could use someone like Feingold, Kucinich, or Grayson to primary Obama's ass all around the country in an effort to get him off his ass and on his game, but sadly, that ain't gonna happen.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 6:57 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I don't always, but I agree with DT here. And yes, there are some scientists who are doing experiments/research relating to intelligent design, even if you guys want to poo poo them. It seems to me, from a probability standpoint, that it would be statistically more likely that someone or something with some cleverness created things than that it just ... happened ... out of nowhere, ... bang! ... and then over billions of years ... somehow ...randomly ... it all happened and here we are ... wow, that's ... random. That is my belief and observation upon the matter, what you believe is your business/choice.

As a girl in school I'd always write a little disclaimer on top of my first paper/test/question and answer page when it was evolution time that said that I believe in intelligent design but that I would answer all the questions in the manner the teacher wanted in order to get good marks. And sure enough I always did and thusly got said good marks.

New Old, we did indeed learn about sex in school. In sixth grade, eighth grade and tenth grade we had sex ed class and learnt about the physical mechanics (in case our parents hadn't explained it to us) the parts of the body and what they do, what was happening with our bodies as we went through puberty, STDs and the use of protection, pregnancy prevention etc. I feel that the ways these were discussed were age apropriate and seemed adequate for our needs at the time/it was age apropriate and informative.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 8:16 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Oh, and huntington's isn't a novel gene, it's a mutation

...You're repeating my point.

Quote:
You know, of course, that I'm very well versed in this stuff

Which is why I said you should know better. Not knowing better throws your well-versedness into question.
Seems to me that you're annoyed I would question your ideas that there is some grand scheme to our genetics, even though you can say in the same breath that random mutation clearly takes place. I don't really appreciate being called 'arrogant' for stating what is simply true in the field of evolutionary biology; they don't dogmatize Darwin, and modern evolutionists are a far cry from being Darwinists. He's important because he laid the foundation, but no one considers him infallible. Same is true of any important figure in sciences; not even Steven Hawking thinks Steven Hawking is infallible. You can say it's snide or arrogant of me all you want, but it's not going to change. Science does update, and that's a big reason I love it.

Quote:
Are you not interested in political ideas that conflict with yours? Wouldn't that be dogmatic?

It has nothing to do with my politics or conflicts with them, it has to do with going on tangents. I have no set opinion on the government of Britain, as I don't live there and don't see it in action on a daily basis. And my only opinion on eugenics is that it's just racism; it has as much to do with science as creationism does, and science should not be blamed for it. Since you brought it up more than once, you were clearly expecting to make some sort of point to me, but it comes across as rather disjointed and not applicable, and I'm not interested in that.

Quote:
Surely you don't think that creationism is science.

That's sort of out of left field. My entire point was that it is not, hence why it is not a theory.

Quote:
This isn't about science

Except it is. This whole discussion was centered around science, and what should be taught as science, and the appalling views certain people hold as science because they want to legitimize them.

Quote:
I have a theory, it could be bunnies. Is that not scientific enough for you?

It isn't, actually, but it also wasn't being used in the context of talking about science and what should be taught in science classes.
(And while bunnies is obviously the most ludicrous example, most of the 'theories' in that particular ditty were working off some kind of model, with knowledge being applied to formulate an idea and make a prediction based on past events.)

Quote:
What are you upset about, Michelle Bachmann being president?

As repeatedly stated, I object to the gross misuse of scientific terms in a scientific context. It's frustrating to see the terms used to mean something they don't mean. It can always be frustrating when definitions are ignored, but it's especially frustrating when it's an important definition, and ignorance of it is used as an attack on science. Bachmann is guilty of doing just that, as are many people who are insisting on creationism being taken as seriously as science is. I'll say again that you should know better.
I will point out, I've heard President Obama make proper use of the word 'hypothesis' on at least two occasions. It made my heart glad.

Quote:
Here's some things I learned in school:

Columbus discovered america...
our flag was designed by betsy ross...
that money came from the mint, and it was valued based on the metal in it...
US soldiers rolled in with tanks and liberated Auschwitz...
that Russians were evil, many mistaken ideas about the world, politics, history, as well as chemistry and physics, including that if you kept going east long enough, you'd find yourself going west. The teacher asked the class why it was, and I said "Because you got sick of going east, and turned around and went home," and the teacher got very cross and said "NO, the earth had not only a north and south pole, but an east and west pole." It turned out he was dead serious.

You got annoyed last time, but I'll reiterate that school now is not what it was then. This whole list no longer applies to my own past and current school experience. You seem set in the idea that such things are never questioned, and irritated by my saying that they are, constantly. I don't understand why. Since the idea of unquestioned stance is clearly appalling to you, you should be glad that things are, in fact, questioned and reassessed, and that curriculum changes accordingly.

Quote:
I'm surprised you don't jump all over me for using y'all, ending a sentence with a preposition. Seems like a dogmatic approach to language. Jes sayin...use your head and hopefully a little imagination and see where dogmatism takes us.

Insulting me in the same post you claim I'm being hostile for saying that your politics had no bearing on the definition of a term? Fantastic technique, guaranteed to not piss me off.
And the proper definition of words is dogmatic now? I'm sorry, I thought they were tools for communication.
Wall tea blur so moose why sewn importation. <---(makes perfect sense if all the words are redefined according to my own rules.)

If you honestly think I am a fan of any sort of dogma, you've clearly ignored everything I've ever said. This seems supported by you 1) repeating my point about mutations like it was a new one, 2) acting as though my initial point somehow went beyond the realm of simply wanting to see an abused term be used properly by someone who claims to be so 'well-versed' in the subject and 3) implying that I, somehow, thought creationism was science, even though every word I've said has been, "No, it isn't science, it isn't a theory, it would be defined as an unsupported hypothetical and it shouldn't be taught or referred to as a theory." Pretty straightforward. Bachmann and her ilk use the word 'theory' as a weapon, because there are some misconceptions about it. I find that offensive.
I don't see where all your insults are coming from, since I was actually giving you a lot of credit, saying you should know better. If my expectation of definitional knowledge was that upsetting, consider it withdrawn.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:03 AM

PR, you are ninety-seven different kinds of awesome. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:31 AM

PR,

Sorry if I over-reacted. I found it abrasive, but I've been a little ornery lately, problems here in NY.

1) It's a semantic point. ID calls itself a theory. I didn't even think about it when posting it. Okay, it's a hypothesis, or perhaps an ill founded conjecture, but I don't think anyone's ever said so here. Actually, it's religion, disguised as science, but that's true of so many ideas posed as science here, and elsewhere, and not just christianity. My beef with the big bang theory is that it's religion disguised as science, and also, that much of it isn't true.

2) You didn't question my ideas. You said quite specifically that you weren't interested in my ideas. You were nitpicking, and I was getting annoyed.

3) I don't think random mutation is the most significant force in evolution. By gene count I'd say the turning on and off of very old genes. Second, transcription by parasitic mechanisms into a host cell. Third, miotic shuffling of existing genes into new complimentary combinations.

4) If you want to see the effect of random mutation by itself as a lone factor in evolution, check out the changes in mitochondria since they joined early host eukaryotic cells. They cannot take transcripted DNA because they use a unique genetic language, the only one I know of which differs from the common language* and because they are within a host cell, and cannot easily exchange information, and reproduce mitotically.

* That common language undoubtedly evolved through genetic communication. I'm not convinced that common language is the result of common ancestry, or that the lack there of precludes common ancestry. My gut tells me if life is sparked into existence once, it likely happened again many times.

Anyway, what mitochondria do is random mutation, and you can see the map of it splayed to the four corners of the globe, because it's probably the most heavily studied genome. It shows changes, but not radical, and I'm not even sure it's evolution. It must evolve, but it just seems like a less efficient mechanism than the other three, in terms of positive changes per generation. For mitochondria, of course, a generation isn't very long.

Quote:
no one considers him infallible

5) No one you consider to be a scientist. But we're not talking about scientists. I've met many teachers who thought he was infallible. I thought we were talking about education, and whether the concept of infallible should be introduced or coded into the education system. To me, that is a very scary idea.

Sure, the Christian think their text is infallible, but that's not going to change if you deny them the debate. And yeah, a discussion on ID is likely a waste of time* and I'm not concerned about whether they get to discuss it or not, but that they have the freedom to discuss it, and that the govt. not respond with a law that bans all debate of curriculum, or any incremental step which might lead in that direction.

(but what isn't? No one posted on my thread "Wulf makes the top ten" but you can go take a look: It's a list of the most responded to threads in the history of this forum. It's really slight depressing.)
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=48831

Right now, I read 1 in 4 children who leave school believe in creationism. This is fed by the church's ability to say "Big School is silencing the truth. The bible is the truth." I can't think that if there were an actual debate, we would have any worse a result, in fact, it would be hard for me to see that creationism would stand at all.

As for education, yes, it changes, but it can be dogmatic, which is bad for science, which, yes, needs to evolve. People will be wrong. It's a fact of life. You need to be able to question that wrongness.

As for saying you were being dogmatic about language, that was a snark, I woulda thought you coulda seen that one coming from a mile away (oh, that was also a snark)

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
PR, you are ninety-seven different kinds of awesome. :)

Mike,

Normally I'd agree, but why do you wait to applaud her until she's attacking me?

PR,

My only point here is that a dogmatic approach is very bad for education. Maybe it wasn't a personal attack and I just took it as one, I've been very on edge lately. A lot going wrong in this corner of the world.

Niki,

No, she's not, but then again, who is? No one who runs is qualified for the job. Look how smart Obama is and what a mess he's made of it. This isn't a job that can be done by one person.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:33 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Holy shit, I agree with Raptor—TWICE, even!

Quote:
I think this idea ' let the students decide ' is laughable.

We could teach them astrology, and astronomy, and let them decide.

We could teach them chemistry, and alchemy, and let them decide...

Quote:
You know who made learning fun ? Carl Sagan...

It's not the subject matter which blows in school, it's how it's being presented. Sure, it can't ALL be smoke and fireworks, but hell, the education in this country has sucked, for generations, and no one wants to do a damn thing about it. Really pisses me off, at the countless years wasted on young minds, who could be far more motivated and may actually LEARN something... but no.

Will wonders never cease?

Although I’d disagree about the subject matter blowing; some of it definitely DOES (like American history!). It’s been improved over time, but a lot is still propaganda and slanted.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:35 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

DT sums up how I feel about I.D. in one respect:

Quote:
Once you set a precedent for dogmatic teaching, education is utterly doomed.

Rose has a good point, too:

Quote:
That's the funny thing about science and theories; they are open to update, where dogma is not. Those theoretical models change as new information becomes available.

I would venture to suggest that dogma FEARS being updated.

I won’t TOUCH the rest of what DT wrote, I’ve learned better and I don’t feel like being dismissed out of hand or dissed, so I didn’t even read the second long diatribe. I’ll leave it to others to try and reason with him, and watch the outcome sadly.

Speaking of which, Rose, you KNOW I think you’re at least 90% awesome; we disagree on some of what you wrote, but as usual you present reasonable, logical arguments. Good luck trying to have a reasonable debate with DT, however...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 7:21 AM

It's undoubtedly my fault because me and PR never disagree about anything, and I don't think we disagree about this. I just worry that a push to ban alternative education will take science and *make* it dogmatic. I've seen it happen before without the legal backing, and I have a friend on the EU history board, and they have such laws for history, it's not a pretty sight. The anti-holocaust laws have spilled over into anti-nationalist, so smaller countries can't teach kids any reason to be proud of their country. It's Europa uber alles over there, and guess who controls the Euro.*

Niki, I noticed you and rap being on the same page, I thought it was humorous. I actually used to agree with this position but I don't anymore. I just worry where it leads.

BTW, thanks for making my point with the embedded personal attack

* For those who did not guess, it's Germany. The Euro Consortium is based out of Brussels, but like the FED, it's a corporate consortium of banks, and the balance of issuing power belongs to banks based in Frankfurt Germany. That's why EU policy so much supports German imperial interests over Europe. It's a German empire.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 7:38 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:

You got annoyed last time, but I'll reiterate that school now is not what it was then. This whole list no longer applies to my own past and current school experience. You seem set in the idea that such things are never questioned, and irritated by my saying that they are, constantly. I don't understand why. Since the idea of unquestioned stance is clearly appalling to you, you should be glad that things are, in fact, questioned and reassessed, and that curriculum changes accordingly.

Such an excellent post, PR.

Funny that DT will decry those who don't include ID with science - saying we wont discuss other theories - but as soon as you disagree with one of his little Dogmatic Nuggets (such as, schools haven't changed since the 50's) - well, you're outta line.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 7:43 AM

PR is right, science keeps changing, but it also *needs* to keep changing. Last I checked, Stem Cells were still banned in the USA, and they were just banned in Europe. That doesn't sound like scientific progress to me.

Here's another anecdote: My sister just went through general radiation therapy, and the doctors themselves said that they didn't think it actually worked, and possibly did more harm than good. That being the case, why do it at all? Because it's the accepted theory, and there's a pocket industry with a vested interest in it continuing. This is what we need to have not happen here.

So, sure, "Are you sure we evolved, and it's not just that God put us here?" is not the question you want asked, but you want those questions asked so that all questions can be asked. It's the same reason no one is supporting legislation that crops up from time to time to ban the westboro baptist church. No one in America wants *that* protest. But Americans want the right to protest, and they accept WBC as the price of that freedom.

Story,

I don't like the idea of ID being taught in schools, but you should take a close look at some of the legislation opposing the idea.

Oh, and thanks for the bonus personal attack. WTF? Last time you attacked me for disagreeing with Mike's statement that Obama was more conservative than Reagan. Reagan may have been an international douche, but that still doesn't make Mike's statement true.

* show me where DT says "schools haven't changed since the 50's" I used to teach highschool, and also college, there's places where it has changed, sure, but there's still the core of a socially engineered system, and it does at times go very off track. I've also worked in the British system, which is why I snark their science, because it's really behind, or was a decade ago. I haven't taught in a US classroom in about 15 years, which is more like 1996 than 1950. If you read some of the legislation, you'd get my point. I think it was WI? but I might have that wrong, that contained the line "No teacher shall be allowed to present any materials to students that challenges any accepted theory."

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 7:57 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
The snide arrogance is unbecoming. You know, of course, that I'm very well versed in this stuff, and all this does is make me very irritated at you.

Quote:
This seemed unnecessarily hostile. Are you not interested in political ideas that conflict with yours? Wouldn't that be dogmatic?

I didn’t see what she wrote as hostile at all. She merely stated

Quote:
Creationism is not a THEORY. It is an UNSUPPORTED HYPOTHESIS

and defended that stance, which I think is appropriate. There is a big difference between a theory and an unsupported hypothesis, and to misrepresent that as being dogmatic has no relation to what she wrote.

Quote:
I'm surprised you don't jump all over me for using y'all, ending a sentence with a preposition. Seems like a dogmatic approach to language.

You said later that was a joke, yet you belied it by posting

Quote:
You were nitpicking, and acting superior. Those are among the things that annoy me.

The “acting superior” thing is one of the main things that annoys me about you, and one reason I no longer attempt to debate you. If anyone on this forum acts superior and writes as if only they know all the facts, it's you. You’re very sensitive to what others say to you, but by gawd, you have no problem dishing it out!

Quote:
I don't even recall a lot of hostility towards Obama

THAT is a prime example of why I don’t communicate with you much. That’s amazing, coming from a supposedly intelligent person. The attacks on Obama were myriad from the start: “Socialist”, “Fascist”, all the other things they called him and all the racist shit that flew around, yet you don’t recall hostility?? I know you won't consider it, but it's just possible what you think you see is colored by your own opinions.

Palin, Bachman, Pawlenty and most of the candidates on the right SAY things straight out which MAKE them fodder for mocking, that’s why they are mocked. Some of their statements are so over the top that it’s hard NOT to...and some of what they propose (and those elected ARE DOING already) is so against what this country stands for that it’s hard not to be angry about it. I could present many examples, but it’s not worth it.

My remarks weren’t even “embedded personal attacks”. Again, your hyper-sensitivity finds it easy to nail on others snidely, yet takes offense at anything even slightly negative about yourself, and goes on the offense, offensively.

Quote:
I’ve learned better and I don’t feel like being dismissed out of hand or dissed

That’s fact, and you just illustrated it beautifully. That’s why I warned Rose about trying to debate you, and you made MY point immediately.

I’m sure you can’t hear any of this, but man, you have a real double standard going when it comes to communicating with others. NOBODY dissed you like you did Rose, yet when I dare to remark on it, it’s a personal attack to you. It's a shame you can't take a step back, READ what you write, then judge yourself as you are so quick to judge others, tho' I wouldn't want you to be as hard on yourself as you are on others.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 8:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
PR, you are ninety-seven different kinds of awesome. :)

Mike,

Normally I'd agree, but why do you wait to applaud her until she's attacking me?

You're being more than just a little oversensitive, DT. I wasn't applauding her "attacking" you, I was applauding her REFUTING you, point by point. And I was applauding her for doing it with more aplomb, eloquence, and patience that I could muster, and more than you've demonstrated in your responses back to PR.

Quote:
My only point here is that a dogmatic approach is very bad for education. Maybe it wasn't a personal attack and I just took it as one, I've been very on edge lately. A lot going wrong in this corner of the world.

Okay, but teaching actual DOGMA as an "alternative" to a real theory seems about as dogmatic an approach as one can find. Jes sayin'.

Quote:

No, she's not, but then again, who is? No one who runs is qualified for the job. Look how smart Obama is and what a mess he's made of it. This isn't a job that can be done by one person.

On that, we have a sliver of agreement.

The biggest problem any President faces is access. I mean that. Not just access in the terms of who you see, and who is allowed to speak to you; I'm speaking of ALL access - what you hear, where, from whom, what you watch, what you witness. And you have teams of advisors IN EVERY SINGLE FACET OF YOUR LIFE whose main - nay, whose ONLY job, is to control what you "know".

That's why Chiefs of Staff get so unnerved when a Prez breaks free and goes off on his own: he just MIGHT run the risk of talking to an actual human being living in the real world, and then his illusions might be shattered.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 1:03 PM

Mike,

That was pretty on target. We have a sheltered czar. Cornfields of popcorn have yet to spring open

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 3:00 PM

I dunno, Rose sounded pretty aggressive to me. I can only imagine what would have ensued had DT actually believed in intelligent design.

PR seems like a pretty shiny person, but I've had more than a few less than positive interactions with her. Perhaps I am misinterpreting, or maybe got a bad couple of first impressions from a couple a religious discussions in the past, but she seems quite hostile to anything remotely Christian. This is just my impression and I do hope I am wrong. Tone of voice doesn't always translate well through text after all.

EDIT: Oh dear, I just realized I posted two things that criticized PR in a row in two different threads. Was eating and didn't think much of the order. I am not 'out to get/attack/chase' her throughout RWED. Just happened to mention her twice in a row while catching up on today's threads.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:37 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Happy, I see what you mean about PR, she does do/say some cool things about certain topics, but she does always seem rather hostile about anything regarding religious faith of any sort.

I was never taught anything about intelligent design in science class in school, nor was anyone else I know or knew. So making a law banning it in the UK seems stupid, bossy and unnecessary. And screw the EU concept, it has overstayed its welcome. It was good for a while until about ten years ago when it just got weird and creepy.

As for Bogman, she's said things that are wayyyyyy more controversial/odd/problematic in my opinion.

I heard that the average text book for science is about 40 years behind what we currently know about science. So school kids are learning old news. I still run across people who refer to a brontasaurus, which was found to be a combination of two different dinosaurs that were put together wrong, like, a long time ago, but people still think there is such a creature. The thing that we thought was a brontasaurus is a brachiosaurus (spelling?) I think history books are somewhat behind too, but the other problem with history is that it is dumbed down to make it warm and fuzzy which I think isn't good. Sure you can leave the gruesomest bits out with little ones, but once they hit middleschool they deserve to know how things were, and the older they get the more clear you can be with them about the bad stuff.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 7:23 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's undoubtedly my fault because me and PR never disagree about anything, and I don't think we disagree about this.

I agree (ha, see what I did there?) I don't really see where the disagreement was coming from. Well, I guess we do differ where you consider something to be 'alternative education' and I consider it to be something that shouldn't be taught in science classrooms. I do not believe that saying there is no evidence of something (after decades of no doubt fervent attempts to find some) and that thing should not be taught alongside science will block anything else from being taught as science, so long as there is evidence. Really just looks like a flat and final refusal to grant special dispensation to something. You see it as something else, even something sinister it would seem. I really can't see it that way.

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Speaking of which, Rose, you KNOW I think you’re at least 90% awesome; we disagree on some of what you wrote, but as usual you present reasonable, logical arguments.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
PR, you are ninety-seven different kinds of awesome. :)

Normally I'd agree, but why do you wait to applaud her until she's attacking me?

You're being more than just a little oversensitive, DT. I wasn't applauding her "attacking" you, I was applauding her REFUTING you, point by point. And I was applauding her for doing it with more aplomb, eloquence, and patience that I could muster.

Heh, thanks for that.

Riona and Happy, though most of what I say arises from my passion for science, there's really no way for me to stop you viewing me as hostile about religion if you want. The one is often viewed as the other, as they aren't the most harmonious of mates. I'm certainly not theistic myself, I never have been, I never will be, and I get annoyed on a personal level and a logical level when it's implied or stated that I am somehow 'missing' something due to that. I'm apt to not respond well to such things.
It's not like that's special in some way, though, I also don't respond well when told I'm missing out for not getting drunk. And had this thread been about James Watson and his 'theory' on eugenics, I would have railed just as hard about that, because there's no solid evidence in his corner for that. In fact, I would rail even harder at that because the man is supposed to be a scientist and has studied DNA for most of his professional life, so tossing all that evidence and calling something so frightful and counter to it a legitimate theory is reprehensible.
And that was a tangent. Sorry about that, but hopefully you get my point. I clearly won't claim an utter lack of passionate opinion, even aggression, but you shouldn't feel all singled out or something. And out-and-out hostility? You'll know that when you see it. I'm much less polite when I'm hostile.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 12:35 AM

Quote:
Riona and Happy, though most of what I say arises from my passion for science, there's really no way for me to stop you viewing me as hostile about religion if you want.

I don't have much time for a reply, and don't want to start an argument, but I'd just like to correct a potential misunderstanding here.

Quote:
... but she seems quite hostile to anything remotely Christian. This is just my impression and I do hope I am wrong.

As I have already said, I do not want to view you as hostile. But when you say things like

Quote:
And yeah, actually, I do think that certain belief systems can be a measure of the job someone will do as president.

it can be difficult to believe you are not prejudiced against religious people. I don't get Mormons either, and I don't want Romney as president but I do find a claim like that offensive. (sorry to cross threads, low on time and about to start another 11 hour work day)

Lastly

Quote:
The one is often viewed as the other, as they aren't the most harmonious of mates.

I assume this refers to science and religion. You've every right to that opinion, but I believe there is no reason why religion and science cannot be 'harmonious mates.' I don't see the theory of evolution as disproving God. Considering it hypothesizes evolution in much the same order as life was said to be created, one could make a case from a certain point of view that it supports Genesis.

I'll try and expand on this last thought later when I have time. The point is, I believe a person can be devoutly religious and still be an empirical scientist. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably not getting the 'devoutly religious' or the 'empirical scientist' part quite right and are letting their personal prejudices get the best of them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:05 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

POV is a funny thing, really. I see a lot of people here who feel automatically attacked if their views are questioned, that includes views on ID and religion, even if the person who does it, does so without personal attacks or insults.

All I've seen is PR state their position, perhaps with a bit of exasperation, but nothing else. In fact, he/she has done so eloquently and politely.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:35 AM

Quote:

I agree (ha, see what I did there?) I don't really see where the disagreement was coming from. Well, I guess we do differ where you consider something to be 'alternative education' and I consider it to be something that shouldn't be taught in science classrooms. I do not believe that saying there is no evidence of something (after decades of no doubt fervent attempts to find some) and that thing should not be taught alongside science will block anything else from being taught as science, so long as there is evidence. Really just looks like a flat and final refusal to grant special dispensation to something. You see it as something else, even something sinister it would seem. I really can't see it that way.

It was coming from me being moody. I wasn't meaning to call alternative education, just that such a thing existed and was under attack. I was homeschooled. I think I would want my kids to be homeschooled. I don't care for the atmosphere of schools, and that's one thing I think has gotten worse: more authoritarian, discipline, cops, drugs, guns, etc. plus, I don't think the amount learned merits the hours spent. I'm sure they could learn more online.

My position on what should be taught is weakened somewhat by my total lack of support for the education system.

I recall one class I was teaching, I had a guy, 26, but still in highschool. He had some sort of brain damage, but I wasn't privy to that information. I know it wasn't down syndrome, he looked and acted normal, aside from a severe learning disability and a tendency to become very irritable. The principle insisted that the pace had to be set by that student's ability to learn. There was a wide variety of learning abilities, his was just the lowest. There was a girl who was the fastest, and everyone else was in between. It struck me that the whole thing needed to be individualized, but I wasn't allowed to alter the structure, because such a system was, I was told, would be unfair, because it would be unequal. Even Marx's "To each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" recognized we are created with equal rights, not are created identical.

I don't think this is about evolution anymore than our wars are about freedom and democracy. TPTB often create an opponent for us to rally against, and then hope we will support something on the order of the Patriot Act to shoot it down. So far, the anti-creation legislation I've seen here doesn't even mention creationism or religion, but focuses on the curriculum not being questioned, against teaching opposing parallel ideas. One of the ideas I had as a teacher (back in the 1850s ;) ) was just this: Teaching opposing ideas. I had a swami as a spiritual guide who had impressed upon me the idea that "teaching people to think was the most important, if not only thing that was needed."

When you consider that all of what we now know is likely to be wrong, it seems essential. When I consider how much more I know now than I did in my 20s, I realize that logically, the alternative would be having teachers be in their 80s. I mean, sure, I knew more than the students did, but I am just thankful I was teaching science and not political science, given how much I've learned since then.

On a side note, there are public schools here which teach the Talmud, because there are in an all orthodox jewish area. I'm not sure about this. It's more of a grey area than ID, because it's religion being taught *as* religion. My guess is that the people voted for it, because the overwhelming majority of the districts are orthodox. I'm less sure if we would extend the same courtesy to christians, but I'm almost certain we wouldn't extend it to muslims.
(Satmars are about as fundamentalist as the Amish, but the Amish don't use the public school system, they have all private schools.)
I'm actually undecided on this issue. My guess is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" would make it a local right. As far as creationism goes, if someone were to make a rule that religion could not disguise itself as science might get my support if you could figure out how to word it so that this was the only effect. I certainly don't like the idea that existing scientific dogma cannot be questioned. Again, picture this spilling over to political science. It's one thing to teach Marx along side Adam Smith, Keynes, Hayek, et al. but picture a classroom where one was taught as gospel.

ETA: I agree about James Watson, and a number of others, also John Watson on psychology. There are some people whose scientific dogma you would not want to see taught in an unquestioned manner.

This also might be where we got off track: I automatically abstract everything to its implications. I almost never focus on the specifics. This applies even to when we're talking about Sarah Palin or something. I might do it to an absurd degree, but the implications are what interests me, the impact of the specifics I figure are ephemeral.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:45 AM

Happy,

I think religion has its place: I'd rather that someone learn right and wrong through trust than the school of experience after picking up a few drug habits, brain damage and a virus or two. I'm with the "let the child burn his hand" school to an extent, but not "let the child burn his hand off." Religion is a good bulwark against this sort of thing.

The reason ID gets under people's skin I think is not so much that it's religion, as that it's pretending to be science.

Magon,

It's a girl

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:35 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, in answer to the original post, NO, this is NOT a serious candidate for the presidency. So far, I've yet to see a serious Republican candidate for President. Ron Paul might come close, but his own party treats him as a joke, and no matter how many straw polls he wins, or by how big a margin, he doesn't get the nomination, no how, no way.

The day Ron Paul gets the nomination for the GOP is the day I'll eat my hat.

Of course, I've also yet to see much of a serious candidate for the Democrats as well. We could use someone like Feingold, Kucinich, or Grayson to primary Obama's ass all around the country in an effort to get him off his ass and on his game, but sadly, that ain't gonna happen.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

I would really enjoy seeing you eat your hat...especially if it's a cowboy hat....but, you are correct, that ain't ever going to happen. Your hat is safe.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 4:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, in answer to the original post, NO, this is NOT a serious candidate for the presidency. So far, I've yet to see a serious Republican candidate for President. Ron Paul might come close, but his own party treats him as a joke, and no matter how many straw polls he wins, or by how big a margin, he doesn't get the nomination, no how, no way.

The day Ron Paul gets the nomination for the GOP is the day I'll eat my hat.

Of course, I've also yet to see much of a serious candidate for the Democrats as well. We could use someone like Feingold, Kucinich, or Grayson to primary Obama's ass all around the country in an effort to get him off his ass and on his game, but sadly, that ain't gonna happen.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

I would really enjoy seeing you eat your hat...especially if it's a cowboy hat....but, you are correct, that ain't ever going to happen. Your hat is safe.

Baseball cap. Sorry to disappoint.

I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul, but in a sense, I absolutely would LOVE to see him get more attention from his party, up to and including the nomination as the Republican candidate for the Presidency. Why? Simple: He has the singular ability and willingness to chase Obama's ass all over the country - even if he didn't have a realistic chance of winning the Presidency (which is an open question, given Obama's approval ratings and lack of same) - and hammering him on the consitutionality of some of his positions, and thereby either forcing him to modify those positions, or to explain them, or sometimes even just forcing him to fucking TAKE a position, instead of waffling.

Instead, we'll get more bread and circuses. The republic is lost; long live the empire! [/snark]

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 4:57 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Oh, and thanks for the bonus personal attack. WTF? Last time you attacked me for disagreeing with Mike's statement that Obama was more conservative than Reagan. Reagan may have been an international douche, but that still doesn't make Mike's statement true.=

I gave my honest impression of your behavior here.

Boy, you like to take everything personal. Enjoy that cross.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 6:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Happy,

I think religion has its place: I'd rather that someone learn right and wrong through trust than the school of experience after picking up a few drug habits, brain damage and a virus or two. I'm with the "let the child burn his hand" school to an extent, but not "let the child burn his hand off." Religion is a good bulwark against this sort of thing.

The reason ID gets under people's skin I think is not so much that it's religion, as that it's pretending to be science.

Magon,

It's a girl

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Quick lunchbreak post. I do not support ID being taught in a science class. I am also not a fan of anything being banned in public education. We have national and state standards on each subject in public education that teachers are responsible to teach. If the teachers have time to teach things not in the standards and still get the rest of their job done, I don't see a problem. I doubt that will happen, not many teachers want to make extra work for themselves. They are paid to teach the standards.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 7:52 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
As I have already said, I do not want to view you as hostile. But when you say things like

Quote:
And yeah, actually, I do think that certain belief systems can be a measure of the job someone will do as president.

it can be difficult to believe you are not prejudiced against religious people. I don't get Mormons either, and I don't want Romney as president but I do find a claim like that offensive. (sorry to cross threads, low on time and about to start another 11 hour work day)

I notice you exclude the full context of my talking about the god complex issue. Spiffy.

I'm prejudiced against fanatics.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'd rather that someone learn right and wrong through trust than the school of experience after picking up a few drug habits, brain damage and a virus or two. I'm with the "let the child burn his hand" school to an extent, but not "let the child burn his hand off." Religion is a good bulwark against this sort of thing.

The assumption that it's necessary, however, is fallacious. I was raised by non-theistic Buddhists, who never stressed religion in any way. I learned right and wrong just fine, through the simple logical application of, "This sort of choice results in this sort of consequence." I prefer that to something like my poor significant other was raised with; "Do this that and the other, and perfectly, or you will go to hell." That doesn't foster a genuine knowledge of right and wrong, it just fosters guilt and fear.

I do not need the written code of a spiritual belief to act like a decent human being.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Oh, and thanks for the bonus personal attack. WTF? Last time you attacked me for disagreeing with Mike's statement that Obama was more conservative than Reagan. Reagan may have been an international douche, but that still doesn't make Mike's statement true.

Y'know, for the record, and now that you've brought it up, you DID get quite personal and arrogant about that in your responses to me. You also grossly misunderstood the point I was making: it wasn't a defense of Obama; it was in indictment of Reagan.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Happy,

I think religion has its place: I'd rather that someone learn right and wrong through trust than the school of experience after picking up a few drug habits, brain damage and a virus or two. I'm with the "let the child burn his hand" school to an extent, but not "let the child burn his hand off." Religion is a good bulwark against this sort of thing.

The reason ID gets under people's skin I think is not so much that it's religion, as that it's pretending to be science.

Magon,

It's a girl

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Quick lunchbreak post. I do not support ID being taught in a science class. I am also not a fan of anything being banned in public education. We have national and state standards on each subject in public education that teachers are responsible to teach. If the teachers have time to teach things not in the standards and still get the rest of their job done, I don't see a problem. I doubt that will happen, not many teachers want to make extra work for themselves. They are paid to teach the standards.

Thank you! That's what I'm talking about - it's not science, so please lets don't teach it as such. Wanna teach a Comparative Religions class and include creation myths? By all means, feel free. I think people should generally be exposed to ALL major religions and belief systems (but should not necessarily be indoctrinated into any of them); that way they can make their own informed choices.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:44 PM

Quote:
I notice you exclude the full context of my talking about the god complex issue. Spiffy.

I'm prejudiced against fanatics.

I isolated the part I had issue with because it was faster and I had little time at that moment.

This is off the main topic so feel free not to respond, but if you will, I am curious. How would you define fanatics? What makes Romney a fanatic? Is he particularly fanatical for a Mormon, do you feel Mormons are fanatics?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 8:14 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Hey PR. I know that you know this, but in order to be a scientist who doesn't get caught up in "dogma" you've got to keep rolling with science as it changes and not be stuck on "When I was younger they said this, and I just don't believe this new thing they're proposing because it doesn't match how I view the scientific world". If you criticize religeon for being dogmatic you must take care to not fall into the idea of treating science as such. I'm not saying that I think you do this. I'm just saying it can happen to people if they aren't watching for it and keeping an open mind about the world, as a devoted scientist usually strives to do.

I'm not much for fanaticism either, I don't find it becoming and its no fun to be a fanatic so I don't support the practice. The only trouble is that different people have different ways of defining fanaticism. We all dislike it to be sure, but sometimes coming to an agreement on what it constitutes can be tricky. If you ask a bitter atheist like my neighbor, then he says all religeons that have any guidelines beyond "Try and be nice" are fanatical. If you ask a Catholic nun, you will get a different answer. I think we can all agree though that fanaticism includes the idea of someone physically harming others because they have different beliefs. So that's a start of a definition.

I think we can also agree that those Mormon offshoot cults where they marry off 13 year old girls to men who have 4 at home are fanatics too. The average Mormon isn't weird like that. Sure they have some ... peculiar beliefs involving special underwear and planets, but they are generally really nice folk and don't have extra wives at home. I wouldn't mind having a Mormon for president. The only question I have in regards to picking a president is "Is s/he going to take the country in the direction I think is right?". If a pagan or a Muslim or a Jew or an atheist is going to take our country in said direction then I'd vote for them.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:42 PM

JAMERON4EVA

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You know who made learning fun ? Carl Sagan. He'd present facts and explain the wonders of science, w/ out it being dry, boring or stale. Robert Bakker does that to, for Paleontology. And there are others, in other fields, who present their subjects in every bit as interesting and informative ways...

It's not the subject matter which blows in school, it's how it's being presented. Sure, it can't ALL be smoke and fireworks, but hell, the education in this country has sucked, for generations, and no one wants to do a damn thing about it. Really pisses me off, at the countless years wasted on young minds, who could be far more motivated and may actually LEARN something... but no.

We mustn't over stimulate young minds. Das ist verboten!

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

Well, well, well, arent we the German speaker here? :O Didn't Nazi Germany suppress education to the point that people like Einstein had to "paper clip" ed out of Der Vaterland? Your saying that's what our education is becoming?

"Mom, he has her chip. He has her."
John Connor,"Born To Run", TSCC EP 2x22

"We mustn't over stimulate young minds. Das ist verboten!" - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2011 3:55 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I think we can all agree though that fanaticism includes the idea of someone physically harming others because they have different beliefs. So that's a start of a definition.

It is defined as "uncritical zeal." Probably known better as "blind faith." While it can certainly lead to physical harm, that isn't its definition. There is a severe lack of critical thinking involved with fanaticism, an unwavering belief in things that cannot be proven, and often a paranoid kind of suspicion of things that can. Groundless restrictions tend to follow in its wake, as in, "This is bad, because this passage of (insert book here) says it is bad, and so I believe without proof that it is bad." Not to say that the majority of religions don't proscribe some genuinely bad things; things that have clear harmful consequences. There is a commandment about killing, for instance. (However, if someone can't decide whether killing someone is bad based on the harmful consequence, that someone is probably completely lacking in basic human empathy.) There is also a commandment about making graven images. Now, this is one that a lot of people don't keep to and most people can't even name, but it is there, proscribing something which has no actual harmful effect. Actually, the first five commandments are fairly empty of any true harmful consequence, but there are certainly people who will get just as offended by supposed 'taking of the lord's name in vain' as by lying.
AND, there are plenty of things not proscribed by (insert book here) that are seriously harmful. In fact, at times harmful things are actively encouraged. While there are people who skip neatly over those things, some fanatics will not, because they don't think critically about it. This is where and how it leads to physical attacks, but that's not where fanaticism begins and ends. Harm can be something other than killing people who don't agree with you, it can also come in the form of dehumanizing certain segments of humanity, because a holy book says you can. It can even be something like contributing to overpopulation because a book written before modern medicine says you should have as many babies as possible, and you don't question or think critically about that.
The purpose of science is to think critically. If someone isn't thinking critically (fanatic) about science, they're doing it wrong. According to the majority of scripture, not questioning religion means you're doing it right. (Gautama the Buddha did encourage people to think for themselves, and not believe anything that didn't agree with their own common sense, but he's one of the few I can think of.)

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2011 8:01 AM