When will the discovery institute quit worrying about themselves and actually show concern for real science education? If no one understands by now that all the DI cares about is lining their own pockets, then those people need their heads examined.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...ution.html

Quote:Led by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, creationists now promote “academic freedom” laws that allow teachers to supplement biology textbooks with materials that attack evolution. The first academic freedom legislation was sponsored in Alabama in 2004 and became a template for legislation distributed by Discovery Institute across the states.

Despite the scientific-sounding name, a former Discovery Institute employee says it’s anything but.

“DI is religiously motivated in all they do,” the person said, requesting anonymity. “One way to tell that the motivation is religion, and not science, is to compare DI work product to tech papers produced by working scientists in the field of biology or subfield of evolutionary biology. The two kinds of work product look very different, read very different, and were produced by very different means.”

Theory of evolution is racist.

There is a place for it, and this sounds about right for where it should be.

Darwin help us all.

If intelligent design should can be taught in schools, why not miracle healing via prayer in Medical school? Sharia in Law school? Scientology in Psychiatry school? Herb-a-Life in Pharmacy school?

Without fail, creation science gives lip service to the methods of science and then throws away the results of those methods because they conflict with creation science's understanding of the Bible. It seems the best argument that creation science has is along the lines of "See, people have written a lot of words on this topic and therefore there is a legitimate scientific disagreement over this issue."

B as in b, S as in S.

The Bible has no bearing on science given that it is, at best, a collection of literature that makes a broad swathe of entirely unprovable claims. Why should anything in it be engage alongside science, let alone be taught? Real scientists and teachers should shoo away creation science supporters in public schools with a smirk and a pat on the head.......

Science is not designed to be a conspiracy designed to challenge faith so if this type of teaching is important to one's family then learn it at church, at home, or in private religious school.

(01-04-2016 05:00 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Darwin help us all.

If intelligent design should can be taught in schools, why not miracle healing via prayer in Medical school? Sharia in Law school? Scientology in Psychiatry school? Herb-a-Life in Pharmacy school?

Without fail, creation science gives lip service to the methods of science and then throws away the results of those methods because they conflict with creation science's understanding of the Bible. It seems the best argument that creation science has is along the lines of "See, people have written a lot of words on this topic and therefore there is a legitimate scientific disagreement over this issue."

B as in b, S as in S.

The Bible has no bearing on science given that it is, at best, a collection of literature that makes a broad swathe of entirely unprovable claims. Why should anything in it be engage alongside science, let alone be taught? Real scientists and teachers should shoo away creation science supporters in public schools with a smirk and a pat on the head.......

Science is not designed to be a conspiracy designed to challenge faith so if this type of teaching is important to one's family then learn it at church, at home, or in private religious school.

The problem is, that if you accept the premise of evolution, the next logical question is who is further along the evolutionary line and who is closer to the ape? Next thing would be to compare/contrast IQ scores by race and compare/contrast common facial features and postures to the ape. I don't think that is very helpful either. Especially when it really doesn't phucking matter either way. Darwin was a racist and this theory is no better than any brought forth by the Aryan Brotherhood.

John Cleese tweeted this today.

Quote:https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/68...8687538177 I would like 2016 to be the year when people remembered that science is a method of investigation,and NOT a belief system

(01-04-2016 05:08 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Darwin was a racist

Perhaps, considering the men and attitudes of his day - but 150 years of science have modified Dawin's theories and any racial concerns to which you worry are no longer a part of the evolutionary dialogue.

The theory of evolution is not racist. Current evolutionary science shows that any theory that claims dividing the human population into separate races is naive and lacking in data. Instead, that evidence is more along the lines of class, cultural and economic divisions rather than anything biological.

(01-04-2016 05:08 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  and this theory is no better than any brought forth by the Aryan Brotherhood.

Evolution is the only theory because the other theories have proven false, not because evolution is the only theory science has examined.

Why do so many here throw out the possibility that creation and evolution can both exist? Without fail that is ignored in " these threads". They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(01-04-2016 05:35 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 05:08 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Darwin was a racist

Perhaps, considering the men and attitudes of his day - but 150 years of science have modified Dawin's theories and any racial concerns to which you worry are no longer a part of the evolutionary dialogue.

The theory of evolution is not racist. Current evolutionary science shows that any theory that claims dividing the human population into separate races is naive and lacking in data. Instead, that evidence is more along the lines of class, cultural and economic divisions rather than anything biological.

(01-04-2016 05:08 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  and this theory is no better than any brought forth by the Aryan Brotherhood.

Evolution is the only theory because the other theories have proven false, not because evolution is the only theory science has examined.

This is beside the point, but it's simply not correct that there's no real genetic lines between ancestries. Race affects things from bone density, muscle fiber type, alcohol metabolism, metabolic rates, diabetes risk, normal white blood cell counts, blood clotting mechanisms, among other things. Not to mention genetic tests can identify a person's ethnicity almost all the time.

Even people like Stephen Pinker and Richard Dawkins reject the idea of race not being meaningful biological category.

To me the idea that populations separated for many millenia evolving identical distributions of intellect and athletic abilities just doesn't seem probable, especially considering some migrated to climates which our bodies aren't suited for. Godless evolution doesn't care about equality or justice.

Of course, I am a creationist and a dualist and not convinced of scientific racism, but being a godless physicalist and believing in equality of races and the sexes is a really difficult proposition with everything that has been learned since the human genome project was completed.

at every level.....narcissism is the fasnzzie ding dang....

why else poser?

ohhhhhhhhhhhhh.........

Let's put into perspective what you enlightened folks are defending:

A quote from "The Descent of Man", in a chapter called "The Races of Man.", in which Darwin wrote:

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla" (1874, p. 178)



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(01-04-2016 09:53 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Let's put into perspective what you enlightened folks are defending:

A quote from "The Descent of Man", in a chapter called "The Races of Man.", in which Darwin wrote:

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla" (1874, p. 178)



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

For 10 points:

What does Darwin's view of the races have to do with the theory of evolution as we know it?

(01-04-2016 10:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 09:53 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Let's put into perspective what you enlightened folks are defending:

A quote from "The Descent of Man", in a chapter called "The Races of Man.", in which Darwin wrote:

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla" (1874, p. 178)



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

For 10 points:

What does Darwin's view of the races have to do with the theory of evolution as we know it?

Oooooh Ooooh pick me pick me! is the answer.......nothing?

(01-04-2016 10:11 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 10:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 09:53 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Let's put into perspective what you enlightened folks are defending:

A quote from "The Descent of Man", in a chapter called "The Races of Man.", in which Darwin wrote:

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla" (1874, p. 178)



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

For 10 points:

What does Darwin's view of the races have to do with the theory of evolution as we know it?

Oooooh Ooooh pick me pick me! is the answer.......nothing?

Correct!

EverRespect has trouble attacking the theory directly, so he tries to poke holes in things associated with evolution - in this case, the hypotheses of men long dead.

(01-04-2016 10:19 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 10:11 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 10:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 09:53 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Let's put into perspective what you enlightened folks are defending:

A quote from "The Descent of Man", in a chapter called "The Races of Man.", in which Darwin wrote:

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla" (1874, p. 178)



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

For 10 points:

What does Darwin's view of the races have to do with the theory of evolution as we know it?

Oooooh Ooooh pick me pick me! is the answer.......nothing?

Correct!

EverRespect has trouble attacking the theory directly, so he tries to poke holes in things associated with evolution - in this case, the hypotheses of men long dead.

(01-04-2016 05:37 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Why do so many here throw out the possibility that creation and evolution can both exist? Without fail that is ignored in " these threads". They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

why do so many not understand the difference between separation of church and state?

to teach any form of faith in any education system contradicts the definition of learning by discovery...

there is a reason the chinese/japanese will fully own this cuntry in the not too distant future....

so amazingly stupid the religious right are.....they can't get out of their own way....