Science standards under threat in Arizona

[dimmesdale]

Wow...ok.


3) You are welcome to see science as a giant conspiracy.

Don't have a problem with science. Do have a problem with propaganda pretending to be science. Big difference.

Take your kids out of the science classroom, much as I would take mine out of specific religious instruction.

A lot are doing just that. They are removing their kids from the public schools and putting them in private schools. They are also lobbying to take money with them in the form of vouchers to pay tuition. The money follows the student. That means less public funds for public schools. That means less teachers and services. That means larger class sizes. More stress on underpaid teachers. Heck, i talked to a frontline educator last night who was on her way to the blood bank to sell her blood. It brings her an extra 4 to 500 dollars a month. I was floored. Appalled. So, you all better figure out a way to adapt or do paradigm shifts of your public schools system may be decimated.

You might see education as a way to get a better SAT, but that's only part of what it's about.

Name one thing which is a better predictor of college success than SAT scores? When they evaluate students for college, it is mostly about SATs. They also go by race preferences, but all that is unscientific garbage. Political meddling, stupidity. The process is not blind or fair even if the SATs are.

 

[Audie]

If anything, it looks like having to cater to the sensibilities of religious fundamentalists is what is destroying our educational system.

My step Dad assured me that the American ed sys
was being destroyed-according to popular opinion-
when his grandfather, and etc.

I have a dear friend from the Philippines.
Her teachers were themselves poorly
trained, they sat crowded on wooden benches
in the incandescent tropical heat,
with no AC, so few supplies they took turns
using books, etc.. A pencil stub traded
back and forth.

BUT, she was determined to succeed, and
succeed she did. Lives in the USA, and
manages a bank.

You dont want to study, little girl? Lil boy?
There are chickens and water buffalo to tend.
Rice to plant. Get your a** in gear and work!!

In China, you dont care to to your utmost to get into
college? haha, we have a rubber boot factory you
may like.

Here, they beg, loan you money to go, and then
inflate grades, coddle you.

If people value education, you cant hold them back,

If not, well, there is a metagory thing about horses
and water.

 

[Jose Fly]

How is it twisted to discuss philosophy in science classes? You never took a "philosophy of science class"? You never heard of same?

It's fascinating that in your desire to have creationism taught in science class, you're willing to accept racism also being taught in the same class (and in doing so you write off racism as just "discussing philosophy").

You think you entrapped me with your "elegant, ineffable question"?

Entrapped? It's a pretty straightforward issue. You're arguing that not allowing creationism to be taught in science class amounts to "indoctrination", and now we see that you feel the same about racism as well. One can only wonder what else you'd allow to be taught.

Why do you fear facts and truth in SCHOOL?

I suppose before you can make that claim, you'd have to show exactly which "facts and truth" you think I'm afraid of.

Also, I asked you to show where I stated that I didn't want anyone learning about anyone's religion in schools. Can you do that, or are you going to retract your claim? Or were you hoping you could just ignore it and everyone would forget?

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolution has no applicable value in life.

After the first time you made this claim, you were provided information that demonstrates how relative evolutionary relatedness among diverse taxa allows us to discern genetic function (CLICK HERE). You ignored that material, and now here you are repeating your claim as if no one had ever responded.

I'm curious.....do you think that's ethical behavior? Do you think you're representing your faith in positive light when you do that?

 

[Audie]

After the first time you made this claim, you were provided information that demonstrates how relative evolutionary relatedness among diverse taxa allows us to discern genetic function (CLICK HERE). You ignored that material, and now here you are repeating your claim as if no one had ever responded.

I'm curious.....do you think that's ethical behavior? Do you think you're representing your faith in positive light when you do that?

Slwim-skwim has an excellent suggestion re
certain posters.

 

[Jose Fly]

Slwim-skwim has an excellent suggestion re
certain posters.

To be honest, if I put all the ridiculous creationists here on ignore, who'd be left other than the people I already agree with? Find me a non-ridiculous creationist to debate and I'll show you where the rainbow's pot of gold is.

 

[Audie]

To be honest, if I put all the ridiculous creationists here on ignore, who'd be left other than the people I already agree with? Find me a non-ridiculous creationist to debate and I'll show you where the rainbow's pot of gold is.

The skwim is a bit quick on the iggy switch.

 

[dimmesdale]

It's fascinating that in your desire to have creationism taught in science class, you're willing to accept racism also being taught in the same class (and in doing so you write off racism as just "discussing philosophy").

19th-century evolution was the catalyst for scientific racism in the 20th century since blacks, for example, were considered one step above apes and five steps below the highest human. Any cursory reading of early 20th century writings assumes blacks were inferior subject to disease like smallpox because of defects. Darwin depicts as savages and civilized denoting inequality. All the National Socialists did was apply it since certain were considered congenital defects by race. That is how they could march women and children off to the gas chambers. Apologists and revisionists can say it was a misapplication, but it was not. It was a practical application of Darwin, spec Descent of Man.

You're arguing that not allowing creationism to be taught in science class amounts to "indoctrination"

Origins has to do with history and theology, not science in the strict sense. Apologists are making historical truth claims about all life on Earth including origins. Highly questionable.

, and now we see that you feel the same about racism as well.

Vilifying is not a logical argument nor is it a sub.

 

[dimmesdale]

After the first time you made this claim, you were provided information that demonstrates how relative evolutionary relatedness among diverse taxa allows us to discern genetic function (CLICK HERE). You ignored that material, and now here you are repeating your claim as if no one had ever responded.

I'm curious.....do you think that's ethical behavior? Do you think you're representing your faith in positive light when you do that?

It is aboult as useless as teaching life on one of the moons of Jupiter as established science via majority opinion. Truth claims do not go by majority opinion of scientists. They are in a cult which does not tolerate dissent from orthodox beliefs.

 

[Audie]

19th-century evolution was the catalyst for scientific racism in the 20th century since blacks, for example, were considered one step above apes and five steps below the highest human. Any cursory reading of early 20th century writings assumes blacks were inferior subject to disease like smallpox because of defects. Darwin depicts as savages and civilized denoting inequality. All the National Socialists did was apply it since certain were considered congenital defects by race. That is how they could march women and children off to the gas chambers. Apologists and revisionists can say it was a misapplication, but it was not. It was a practical application of Darwin, spec Descent of Man.

Origins has to do with history and theology, not science in the strict sense. Apologists are making historical truth claims about all life on Earth including origins. Highly questionable.

Vilifying is not a logical argument nor is it a sub.

Cursory reading, yes.

That is now you manage to make exactly the same
"mistake" as the Nazis and eugenics people.

Pretending that the error is not your ignorance,
but the work of "apologists" is ridiculous.

It is not secret here that you know very very little
about ToE other than what you may have read
in some "Christian" rendering.

If you did, you would not walk so glibly into
the exact same mistake that the social
darwinists did.

You dont even understand why I'd say that.

 

[Jose Fly]

19th-century evolution was the catalyst for scientific racism in the 20th century since blacks, for example, were considered one step above apes and five steps below the highest human. Any cursory reading of early 20th century writings assumes blacks were inferior subject to disease like smallpox because of defects. Darwin depicts as savages and civilized denoting inequality. All the National Socialists did was apply it since certain were considered congenital defects by race. That is how they could march women and children off to the gas chambers. Apologists and revisionists can say it was a misapplication, but it was not. It was a practical application of Darwin, spec Descent of Man.

For the sake of argument, let's grant all that as true. What then is your point?

IOW, racists justified their views by appealing to Darwin, therefore..........?

Origins has to do with history and theology, not science in the strict sense.

Sorry, but things are not so simply because you say they are.

Vilifying is not a logical argument nor is it a sub.

Then what is your point in arguing that Darwinism was used to justify racism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is aboult as useless as teaching life on one of the moons of Jupiter as established science via majority opinion. Truth claims do not go by majority opinion of scientists. They are in a cult which does not tolerate dissent from orthodox beliefs.

That is amazingly wrong. The way to fame in the world of science is to oppose "orthodox beliefs" while demonstrating that one is correct. You are following dishonest and ignorant tools that have been shown to have false beliefs not once, not twice but thousands of times.

Why are you so afraid to learn? You appear to be bright enough. What keeps you from understanding this science?

 

[SkepticThinker]

19th-century evolution was the catalyst for scientific racism in the 20th century since blacks, for example, were considered one step above apes and five steps below the highest human. Any cursory reading of early 20th century writings assumes blacks were inferior subject to disease like smallpox because of defects. Darwin depicts as savages and civilized denoting inequality. All the National Socialists did was apply it since certain were considered congenital defects by race. That is how they could march women and children off to the gas chambers. Apologists and revisionists can say it was a misapplication, but it was not. It was a practical application of Darwin, spec Descent of Man.

Origins has to do with history and theology, not science in the strict sense. Apologists are making historical truth claims about all life on Earth including origins. Highly questionable.

Vilifying is not a logical argument nor is it a sub.

This is nonsense. Racism existed loooooong before evolution ever made its way onto the scene.

Evolution does't assume that any "race" is inferior to any other. Rather, it demonstrates that all humans are one biological race.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is aboult as useless as teaching life on one of the moons of Jupiter as established science via majority opinion.

Demonstrably false, as evidenced by the material I posted and you have ignored. The fact remains, evolutionary relatedness is indeed extremely useful.

Truth claims do not go by majority opinion of scientists.

Correct, which is why the material I posted does not rely on "majority opinion of scientists" in any way. Instead, the utility of evolutionary relatedness is demonstrated by how it provides a framework that allows discernment of genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy.

They are in a cult which does not tolerate dissent from orthodox beliefs.

Oh....so you believe the world's earth and life scientists have been, and are currently, part of a "cult". I guess I should thank you for removing any doubt about you.

 

[Jose Fly]

The skwim is a bit quick on the iggy switch.

Well, now that @dimmesdale has made it clear that he believes scientists are in a "cult", perhaps @Skwim was just ahead of the curve on this one.

 

[Audie]

Well, now that @dimmesdale has made it clear that he believes scientists are in a "cult", perhaps @Skwim was just ahead of the curve on this one.

Them evolutionist scientists are all either
agents of, or dupes of Satan. I heard about that.

 

[dimmesdale]

For the sake of argument, let's grant all that as true. What then is your point?

IOW, racists justified their views by appealing to Darwin, therefore..........?

Well the subject was racism which was ripe in the 1800s and into the 2nd World War. You brought it up. I commented on it with historical facts.

Then what is your point in arguing that Darwinism was used to justify racism?

It was applied Darwinism.
#7-12 is apes. #6 is Negro and #1 is the highest human according to Darwinist Haeckel. Negro is one step above apes and five steps below the highest human. It is applied Darwin who made distinctions between civilized and savages according to race. These were cutting edge and precursors to marching women and children off to the gas chambers. So let's not browbeat about racism.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well the subject was racism which was ripe in the 1800s and into the 2nd World War. You brought it up. I commented on it with historical facts.


It was applied Darwinism.
#7-12 is apes. #6 is Negro and #1 is the highest human according to Darwinist Haeckel. Negro is one step above apes and five steps below the highest human. It is applied Darwin who made distinctions between civilized and savages according to race. These were cutting edge and precursors to marching women and children off to the gas chambers. So let's not browbeat about racism.

Again, what is your point? Racists justified their racism by appealing to Darwinism, therefore.............?

 

[dimmesdale]

Again, what is your point? Racists justified their racism by appealing to Darwinism, therefore.............?

Did you like the pic? i shared just for you. You do know Darwin predicted race wars between civilized and savage races? Don't ya think the word savage has racist connotations? Anyways, you have a nice day.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I''m interested in an answer to that question as well.