So what? Religious fundamentalists are dangerous, that's what. Americans love to rant and rave about Islamic fundamentalists trying to take over their country, but you get defensive when it comes to Christian fundamentalists who are actually trying to take over your country -
As long as they are just building museums, I'm not too worried.
As soon as a sect like the Presbyterians or Catholics declare other sects of Christianity as non-Christians and they start suicide bombing each other, then it's time to move to Canada.
Plus ... it's Kentucky. Besides their college basketball team and their bourbon, they have little influence on the rest of the country. :geek:
So what? Religious fundamentalists are dangerous, that's what. Americans love to rant and rave about Islamic fundamentalists trying to take over their country, but you get defensive when it comes to Christian fundamentalists who are actually trying to take over your country -
As long as they are just building museums, I'm not too worried.
As soon as a sect like the Presbyterians or Catholics declare other sects of Christianity as non-Christians and they start suicide bombing each other, then it's time to move to Canada.
Plus ... it's Kentucky. Besides their college basketball team and their bourbon, they have little influence on the rest of the country. :geek:
They'd probably attack the Jack Daniels distillery before they started attacking other sects.
I imagine they'd have a fight on their hands then.
AMY GOODMAN: And what are the corporations that are part of this?
CHRIS HEDGES: Well, DeVos, a guy who founded Amway; Target; Sam’s Club. You know, they bring in — a lot of these corporations like Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club and others bring in these sort of dominionist or evangelical ministers into the plants as a way to mollify workers. Subscribing to this belief system is essentially about disempowerment.
That's right, he said 'Target'. Maybe Ed Vedd needs to reconsider who he hob-knobs with.
Ok, not being a smartass...he said wal-mart and sam's club bring ministers into "the plants". Did he just misspeak and mean stores?
AMY GOODMAN: And what are the corporations that are part of this?
CHRIS HEDGES: Well, DeVos, a guy who founded Amway; Target; Sam’s Club. You know, they bring in — a lot of these corporations like Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club and others bring in these sort of dominionist or evangelical ministers into the plants as a way to mollify workers. Subscribing to this belief system is essentially about disempowerment.
That's right, he said 'Target'. Maybe Ed Vedd needs to reconsider who he hob-knobs with.
Ok, not being a smartass...he said wal-mart and sam's club bring ministers into "the plants". Did he just misspeak and mean stores?
Probably. Unless he's referring to the warehouses that supply these stores.
Probably. Unless he's referring to the warehouses that supply these stores.
Yeah, but wal-mart doesn't make the stuff. And I know that none of those factories are going to let wal-mart bring in a minister or anything else. Perhaps referring to whatever contract manufacturer is making the private label merchandise, but I highly doubt that.
I have a feeling this point is being overblown by this guy, but not sure.
On another note: they have billboards in Indianapolis with Dinosaurs on them as ads for the museum in Northern Kentucky. It was a sweet billboard and I imagine it gets kids to want to go....to see dinosaurs of course.
I'm really not sure who goes to this museum. I actually thought about it at one time, just to see what they hell they were doing. Then I quickly lost interest.
Really if they can get people to come it is a ridiculously good marketing tool for them and their beliefs.
"I don't hate these people, I just find them to be ridiculous."
"I'll keep laughing at them"
Your words.... not mine. Looks fairly intolerant to me - to find someone else's personal views ridiculous? to laugh at them?. If you dont feel that the above appears intolerant then maybe you should express yourself a little more clearly. There you go, more than 5 words.
"I don't hate these people, I just find them to be ridiculous."
"I'll keep laughing at them"
Your words.... not mine. Looks fairly intolerant to me - to find someone else's personal views ridiculous? to laugh at them?. If you dont feel that the above appears intolerant then maybe you should express yourself a little more clearly. There you go, more than 5 words.
Peace. Out.
Laughter is intolerant now is it? What do you think of the Westboro Baptist Church? Would it be intolerant of me to laugh at them too?
In a disturbing trend, anti-evolution campaigners are combining with climate change deniers to undermine public education
Katherine Stewart
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 12 February 2012
You might have thought it was all over after the 2005 decision by the US district court of Middle Pennsylvania (pdf), which ruled in the case of the Dover Area schools that teaching intelligent design is unconstitutional. You might have guessed that they wouldn't come back after the 1987 US supreme court decision in Edwards v Aguillard, which deemed the teaching of creationism in Louisiana schools unconstitutional. Or maybe you figured that the opponents of evolution had their Waterloo in the 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial in Tennessee.
They are back. There are six bills aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution before state legislatures this year: two each in New Hampshire and Missouri, one each in Indiana and Oklahoma. And it's only February.
For the most part, the authors of these bills are singing a song we've heard before. Jerry Bergevin, the Republican sponsor of one of the New Hampshire bills, says of evolution that "It's a worldview and it's godless." He blames the teaching of evolution for Nazism and Columbine. Josh Brecheen, the sponsor of the Oklahoma bill, wants to stop the teaching of "the religion of evolution." These legislators, and their colleagues in Missouri and Indiana, trot out the hoary line that evolution is "just a theory" and that real science means saying that every point of view is just as good as any other.
Most of these bills aren't likely to get anywhere. The Indiana bill, which specifically proposes the teaching of "creation science", so obviously falls foul of the supreme court's 1987 ruling that it's hard to imagine it getting out of committee. The same could be said for the Missouri bill, which calls for the "equal treatment" of "biological evolution and biological intelligent design".
Still, it's worth asking: why is this happening now? Well, in part, it's just that anti-evolution bills are an indicator of the theological temperature in state houses, and there is no question that the temperature has been rising. New Hampshire, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Missouri turned deeper shades of red in the 2010 elections, as did the US Congress.
But there are a couple of new twists that make this same-old story more interesting than usual. One has to do with the temperature in a less metaphorical sense. The Oklahoma bill isn't properly speaking just an "anti-evolution" bill; it is just as opposed to the "theory" of "global warming". A bill pending in Tennessee likewise targets "global warming" alongside "biological evolution". These and other bills aim their rhetoric at "scientific controversies" in plural, and one of the New Hampshire bills does not even bother to specify which controversies it has in mind.
The convergence here is, to some degree, cultural. It just so happens that the people who don't like evolution are often the same ones who don't want to hear about climate change. It is also the case that the rhetoric of the two struggles is remarkably similar – everything is a "theory", and we should "teach the controversy". But we also cannot overlook the fact is that there is a lot more money at stake in the climate science debate than in the evolution wars. Match those resources with the passions aroused by evolution, and we may have a new force to be reckoned with in the classroom.
The other significant twist has to do with the fact that the new anti-evolution – make that anti-science – bills are emerging in the context of the most vigorous assault on public education in recent history. In Oklahoma, for example, while Senator Brecheen fights the forces of evolution and materialism, the funding for schools is being cut, educational attainments are falling, and conservative leaders are agitating for school voucher systems, which, in the name of "choice", would divert money from public schools to private schools – many of them religious. The sponsor of Indiana's anti-science bill, Dennis Kruse, who happens to be chairman of the Senate education committee, is also fighting the two battles at once.
The Heartland Institute – which has received funding in the past from oil companies and is a leading source of climate science skepticism – also lobbies strongly for school vouchers and other forms of "school transformation" that are broadly aimed at undermining the current public school system. The Discovery Institute – a leading voice for intelligent design – has indicated its support of exactly the same "school reform" initiatives.
If you can't shut down the science, the new science-deniers appear to be saying, you should shut down the schools. It would be a shame if they succeeded in replacing the teaching of science with indoctrination. It would be worse if they were to close the public school house doors altogether.
here ya go man, this is just some interesting reading and I'm sure you will do everything you can to dismiss it in some way or another...that's your nature but have fun anyway.
Godfather.
The following are 8 really good reasons why Christianity is true.....
#1) The world around us reveals that God DOES exist. The following short videos were produced by an ex-atheist and ex-evolutionist who is a graduate of Yale Law School. These videos drive atheists and skeptics crazy, but for a more complete treatment of this topic, please read Strobel's excellent book entitled "The Case For A Creator":
ABC News reports on the findings of a study that concluded 16% of U.S. science teachers are Creationists, and that, disturbingly, one in eight are teaching creationism as a valid science:
Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in U.S. schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science, a survey reveals. And, although almost all teachers also taught evolution, those with less training in science -- and especially evolutionary biology -- tend to devote less class time to Darwinian principles...
The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2,000 high-school science teachers across the U.S. in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2 percent said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject.
However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48 percent -- about 12.5 percent of the total survey -- said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".
ABC News reports on the findings of a study that concluded 16% of U.S. science teachers are Creationists, and that, disturbingly, one in eight are teaching creationism as a valid science:
Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in U.S. schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science, a survey reveals. And, although almost all teachers also taught evolution, those with less training in science -- and especially evolutionary biology -- tend to devote less class time to Darwinian principles...
The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2,000 high-school science teachers across the U.S. in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2 percent said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject.
However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48 percent -- about 12.5 percent of the total survey -- said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".
noooo say it aint so
if that's the worst thing you have to worry about then I'd say your life aint so bad.
"Denial of evolution is unique to the United States. I mean, we're the world's most advanced technological — I mean, you could say Japan — but generally, the United States is where most of the innovations still happens. People still move to the United States. And that's largely because of the intellectual capital we have, the general understanding of science. When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in that, it holds everybody back, really.
"Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It's like, it's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You're just not going to get the right answer. Your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place.
"As my old professor, Carl Sagan, said, 'When you're in love you want to tell the world.' So, once in a while I get people that really — or that claim — they don't believe in evolution. And my response generally is 'Well, why not? Really, why not?' Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution. I mean, here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant stars that are just like our star but they're at a different point in their lifecycle. The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent.
"And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.
"It's just really a hard thing, it's really a hard thing. You know, in another couple of centuries that world view, I'm sure, will be, it just won't exist. There's no evidence for it."
"I don't hate these people, I just find them to be ridiculous."
"I'll keep laughing at them"
Your words.... not mine. Looks fairly intolerant to me - to find someone else's personal views ridiculous? to laugh at them?. If you dont feel that the above appears intolerant then maybe you should express yourself a little more clearly. There you go, more than 5 words.
Peace. Out.
Laughter is intolerant now is it? What do you think of the Westboro Baptist Church? Would it be intolerant of me to laugh at them too?
if laughing at, yes, of course it is. How pompous to laugh at someone, anyone, just because their own views aren't the same as yours. Instead of laughing at someone, you could engage with them or you could walk away and not let it affect you.
'Months later, when I rarely saw the Angels, I still had the legacy of the big machine—four hundred pounds of chrome and deep red noise to take out on the Coast highway and cut loose at three in the morning, when all the cops were lurking over on the 101. My first crash had wrecked the bike completely and it took several months to have it rebuilt. After that i decided to tide it differently: I would stop pushing my luck on curves, always wear a helmet and try to keep within range of the nearest speed limit…my insurance had already been canceled and my driver's license was hanging by a thread.
...So it was always at night, like a werewolf, that I would take the thing out for an honest run down the coast. I would start in Golden Gate park, thinking only to run a few long curves to clear my head…but in a matter of minutes I’d be out at the beach with the sound of the engine in my ears, the surf booming up on the sea wall and a fine empty road stretching all the way down to Santa Cruz…not even a gas station in the whole seventy miles; the only public light along the way is an all-night diner down around Rockaway Beach.
...But with the throttle screwed on, there is only the barest margin, and no room at all for mistakes. It has to be done right... and that's when the strange music starts, when you stretch your luck so far that fear becomes exhilaration and vibrates along your arms. You can barely see at a hundred; the tears blow back so fast that they vaporize before they get to your ears. The only sounds are the wind and a dull roar floating back from the mufflers. You watch the white line and try to lean with it... howling through a turn to the right, then to the left, and down the long hill to Pacifica... letting off now, watching for cops, but only until the next dark stretch and another few seconds on the edge... The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. The others- the living- are those who pushed their luck as far as they felt they could handle it, and then pulled back, or slowed down, or did whatever they had to when it came time to choose between Now and Later.
But the edge is still Out there. Or maybe it's In. The association of motorcycles with LSD is no accident of publicity. They are both a means to an end, to the place of definitions.' - (P.269-271) Hell’s Angels, a Strange and Terrible Saga of the Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs
if laughing at, yes, of course it is. How pompous to laugh at someone, anyone, just because their own views aren't the same as yours. Instead of laughing at someone, you could engage with them or you could walk away and not let it affect you.
Thanks for the morality lesson. If you had things your way, every comedian would need to retire today. I mean, how dare they laugh at anyone, right?
Let's try to reason with people that believe the Earth was created by 'God' 6000 years ago, and that dinosaurs walked the Earth with Jesus.
I know right? I hate people that think other stuff, too.
Were public funds used to build this museum? No? So mostly you're just trolling for yuks from other non-Christians. Imagine if...certain other folks on this board...posted a list of strange facts about Islam and then mocked them. You'd be the first person there posting about bias and islamophobia.
You know how DS feels about hypocrites ( :twisted: ).
That last part was in jest. Oh, I guess so was the very first part.
Who said anything about hate? I don't hate these people, I just find them to be ridiculous.
And not all Christians are fundamentalists who believe in wacky fantasies regarding the Earths creation.
Whoops! I hope that didn't 'offend' you? :roll:
"Hate" is a popular term I borrowed from the liberals on this board who use it whenever they sniff intolerance to one of their pet causes (and, as this thread has made clear for some, ONLY their pet causes). You point out a facet of their faith and then you mock it with derisive sarcasm. Then you include a cryptic reference to Nazi Germany that doesn't quite say that American Christians are comparable to Nazis, but doesn't exactly quite say anything else, either. It comes off as another cheap shot at a worldview you don't subscribe to, while leaving yourself just enough wiggle room to say, "oh, who me? where did I say anyone was comparable to Nazis? show me where I said that!" So, kudos to you on that masterful effort.
You offer nothing else until a few posts later when you try to turn it into a conversation about religion in education and about how we must be aware.
Bottom line, there are ways to start a conversation about a viewpoint that you disagree with and there are ways to stir the pot with the intolerance of your own personal worldview. This is an example of the latter.
I know right? I hate people that think other stuff, too.
Were public funds used to build this museum? No? So mostly you're just trolling for yuks from other non-Christians. Imagine if...certain other folks on this board...posted a list of strange facts about Islam and then mocked them. You'd be the first person there posting about bias and islamophobia.
You know how DS feels about hypocrites ( :twisted: ).
That last part was in jest. Oh, I guess so was the very first part.
Actually, tax "incentives" are being used to fund this project.
Unfortunately, there was only a minor uproar about it when that was announced last year. Seems like most Kentuckians support this musuem and the soon to be built theme park. My real problem (in addition to using public money to fund this) is that the science is wrong and quite a few notable scientific groups have spoken out about the fallacies of the information presented at their museum.
Interesting topic for discussion. However, the article you linked is about a different project and says nothing about the museum in question being funded by tax incentives.
Then you include a cryptic reference to Nazi Germany that doesn't quite say that American Christians are comparable to Nazis, but doesn't exactly quite say anything else, either. It comes off as another cheap shot at a worldview you don't subscribe to, while leaving yourself just enough wiggle room to say, "oh, who me? where did I say anyone was comparable to Nazis? show me where I said that!" So, kudos to you on that masterful effort.
A 'cryptic reference to Nazi Germany that doesn't quite say that American Christians are comparable to Nazis'? Nah, it was nothing of the sort, as you know. Though I see you've done your very best to try and twist my words. No kudos to you though, because your effort is lame and pathetic.
In my reply to the question from hostis: "but how would it affect you if that happened anyway?"
I said: "How did Nazism effect anybody outside of Germany? Dangerous ideas have dangerous consequences."
Nothing to do with comparing Christians to Nazis, as any honest person can see.
Bottom line, there are ways to start a conversation about a viewpoint that you disagree with and there are ways to stir the pot with the intolerance of your own personal worldview. This is an example of the latter.
My personal Worldview isn't intolerant of anything except bullshit. And Creationism is bullshit as any rational thinking person will agree.
If you had things your way, every comedian would need to retire today. I mean, how dare they laugh at anyone, right?
Let's try to reason with people that believe the Earth was created by 'God' 6000 years ago, and that dinosaurs walked the Earth with Jesus.
You're welcome.
Why would I want things my way? I am a pretty tolerant person so don't need everything to be 'my way'.
Why not try to reason with people who think and believe differently from you? You never know, they could learn something from you and you from them. And btw, most creationists don't believe that dinosaurs walked the earth with Jesus, they believe God put those bones there to test their faith. There is a difference. (but if I am wrong I am sure you will find some googled article that you can copy and paste <here>
'Months later, when I rarely saw the Angels, I still had the legacy of the big machine—four hundred pounds of chrome and deep red noise to take out on the Coast highway and cut loose at three in the morning, when all the cops were lurking over on the 101. My first crash had wrecked the bike completely and it took several months to have it rebuilt. After that i decided to tide it differently: I would stop pushing my luck on curves, always wear a helmet and try to keep within range of the nearest speed limit…my insurance had already been canceled and my driver's license was hanging by a thread.
...So it was always at night, like a werewolf, that I would take the thing out for an honest run down the coast. I would start in Golden Gate park, thinking only to run a few long curves to clear my head…but in a matter of minutes I’d be out at the beach with the sound of the engine in my ears, the surf booming up on the sea wall and a fine empty road stretching all the way down to Santa Cruz…not even a gas station in the whole seventy miles; the only public light along the way is an all-night diner down around Rockaway Beach.
...But with the throttle screwed on, there is only the barest margin, and no room at all for mistakes. It has to be done right... and that's when the strange music starts, when you stretch your luck so far that fear becomes exhilaration and vibrates along your arms. You can barely see at a hundred; the tears blow back so fast that they vaporize before they get to your ears. The only sounds are the wind and a dull roar floating back from the mufflers. You watch the white line and try to lean with it... howling through a turn to the right, then to the left, and down the long hill to Pacifica... letting off now, watching for cops, but only until the next dark stretch and another few seconds on the edge... The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. The others- the living- are those who pushed their luck as far as they felt they could handle it, and then pulled back, or slowed down, or did whatever they had to when it came time to choose between Now and Later.
But the edge is still Out there. Or maybe it's In. The association of motorcycles with LSD is no accident of publicity. They are both a means to an end, to the place of definitions.' - (P.269-271) Hell’s Angels, a Strange and Terrible Saga of the Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs
I have actually read a few of his books a long time ago, awesome !
I checked out their Living Inductees into the hall of fame and most don't even have a Bachelor of Science degree and the ones that do, most are engineers.
And then there is this guy, Charles Jackson, who I highly suspect is the illegitimate son of NASCAR great, Richard Petty.
Why would I want things my way? I am a pretty tolerant person so don't need everything to be 'my way'.
Why not try to reason with people who think and believe differently from you? You never know, they could learn something from you and you from them.
I'm perfectly willing to engage with any creationists here. What does that have to do with my posting the original article in order to draw attention to their plan to build another museum in Kentucky?
And btw, most creationists don't believe that dinosaurs walked the earth with Jesus, they believe God put those bones there to test their faith. There is a difference. (but if I am wrong I am sure you will find some googled article that you can copy and paste <here>
Some creationists believe that dinosaurs walked the Earth with Jesus, and yes, I will back my statement up with a link to an article. Though clearly supporting my views with referenced links and sources bothers you. But then why would I care about that?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ ... ion-museum
While at the museum I spent some time talking to geologist Andrew Snelling. Another Australian, Snelling has a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney and worked in various capacities for the Australian mining industry before getting into "creation science" full time, first for the Texas-based Institute for Creation Research, and then since 2007 for Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.
I mention to Andrew that I'm surprised to see animatronic models and fossils of dinosaurs around the museum. "They were real, we have their bones … in fact the Bible even potentially describes creatures that were dinosaurs. We don't have to be afraid of the real evidence," he says. "We're looking at the fossil record – instead of being the order of creatures living and dying and evolving over millions of years – as the burial order during the flood. In other words, dinosaurs were alive during the pre-flood Earth. So were trilobites, so were people."
Comments
As soon as a sect like the Presbyterians or Catholics declare other sects of Christianity as non-Christians and they start suicide bombing each other, then it's time to move to Canada.
Plus ... it's Kentucky. Besides their college basketball team and their bourbon, they have little influence on the rest of the country. :geek:
intolerance and opposition are not the same.
They'd probably attack the Jack Daniels distillery before they started attacking other sects.
I imagine they'd have a fight on their hands then.
Another cute soundbite. What's intolerant about anything I've said here in this thread?
See if you can answer me with more than 5 words.
Ok, not being a smartass...he said wal-mart and sam's club bring ministers into "the plants". Did he just misspeak and mean stores?
Probably. Unless he's referring to the warehouses that supply these stores.
Yeah, but wal-mart doesn't make the stuff. And I know that none of those factories are going to let wal-mart bring in a minister or anything else. Perhaps referring to whatever contract manufacturer is making the private label merchandise, but I highly doubt that.
I have a feeling this point is being overblown by this guy, but not sure.
I'm really not sure who goes to this museum. I actually thought about it at one time, just to see what they hell they were doing. Then I quickly lost interest.
Really if they can get people to come it is a ridiculously good marketing tool for them and their beliefs.
"I'll keep laughing at them"
Your words.... not mine. Looks fairly intolerant to me - to find someone else's personal views ridiculous? to laugh at them?. If you dont feel that the above appears intolerant then maybe you should express yourself a little more clearly. There you go, more than 5 words.
Peace. Out.
Laughter is intolerant now is it? What do you think of the Westboro Baptist Church? Would it be intolerant of me to laugh at them too?
The new anti-science assault on US schools
In a disturbing trend, anti-evolution campaigners are combining with climate change deniers to undermine public education
Katherine Stewart
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 12 February 2012
You might have thought it was all over after the 2005 decision by the US district court of Middle Pennsylvania (pdf), which ruled in the case of the Dover Area schools that teaching intelligent design is unconstitutional. You might have guessed that they wouldn't come back after the 1987 US supreme court decision in Edwards v Aguillard, which deemed the teaching of creationism in Louisiana schools unconstitutional. Or maybe you figured that the opponents of evolution had their Waterloo in the 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial in Tennessee.
They are back. There are six bills aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution before state legislatures this year: two each in New Hampshire and Missouri, one each in Indiana and Oklahoma. And it's only February.
For the most part, the authors of these bills are singing a song we've heard before. Jerry Bergevin, the Republican sponsor of one of the New Hampshire bills, says of evolution that "It's a worldview and it's godless." He blames the teaching of evolution for Nazism and Columbine. Josh Brecheen, the sponsor of the Oklahoma bill, wants to stop the teaching of "the religion of evolution." These legislators, and their colleagues in Missouri and Indiana, trot out the hoary line that evolution is "just a theory" and that real science means saying that every point of view is just as good as any other.
Most of these bills aren't likely to get anywhere. The Indiana bill, which specifically proposes the teaching of "creation science", so obviously falls foul of the supreme court's 1987 ruling that it's hard to imagine it getting out of committee. The same could be said for the Missouri bill, which calls for the "equal treatment" of "biological evolution and biological intelligent design".
Still, it's worth asking: why is this happening now? Well, in part, it's just that anti-evolution bills are an indicator of the theological temperature in state houses, and there is no question that the temperature has been rising. New Hampshire, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Missouri turned deeper shades of red in the 2010 elections, as did the US Congress.
But there are a couple of new twists that make this same-old story more interesting than usual. One has to do with the temperature in a less metaphorical sense. The Oklahoma bill isn't properly speaking just an "anti-evolution" bill; it is just as opposed to the "theory" of "global warming". A bill pending in Tennessee likewise targets "global warming" alongside "biological evolution". These and other bills aim their rhetoric at "scientific controversies" in plural, and one of the New Hampshire bills does not even bother to specify which controversies it has in mind.
The convergence here is, to some degree, cultural. It just so happens that the people who don't like evolution are often the same ones who don't want to hear about climate change. It is also the case that the rhetoric of the two struggles is remarkably similar – everything is a "theory", and we should "teach the controversy". But we also cannot overlook the fact is that there is a lot more money at stake in the climate science debate than in the evolution wars. Match those resources with the passions aroused by evolution, and we may have a new force to be reckoned with in the classroom.
The other significant twist has to do with the fact that the new anti-evolution – make that anti-science – bills are emerging in the context of the most vigorous assault on public education in recent history. In Oklahoma, for example, while Senator Brecheen fights the forces of evolution and materialism, the funding for schools is being cut, educational attainments are falling, and conservative leaders are agitating for school voucher systems, which, in the name of "choice", would divert money from public schools to private schools – many of them religious. The sponsor of Indiana's anti-science bill, Dennis Kruse, who happens to be chairman of the Senate education committee, is also fighting the two battles at once.
The Heartland Institute – which has received funding in the past from oil companies and is a leading source of climate science skepticism – also lobbies strongly for school vouchers and other forms of "school transformation" that are broadly aimed at undermining the current public school system. The Discovery Institute – a leading voice for intelligent design – has indicated its support of exactly the same "school reform" initiatives.
If you can't shut down the science, the new science-deniers appear to be saying, you should shut down the schools. It would be a shame if they succeeded in replacing the teaching of science with indoctrination. It would be worse if they were to close the public school house doors altogether.
com'on man you know I coulden't save a link to save my life ha ha ha, they are the result of a 5min. search
Godfather.
Godfather.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/2 ... 02853.html
Creationism In US High Schools: 16 Percent Of US Science Teachers Are Creationists
Huffington Post
05/29/08
ABC News reports on the findings of a study that concluded 16% of U.S. science teachers are Creationists, and that, disturbingly, one in eight are teaching creationism as a valid science:
Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in U.S. schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science, a survey reveals. And, although almost all teachers also taught evolution, those with less training in science -- and especially evolutionary biology -- tend to devote less class time to Darwinian principles...
The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2,000 high-school science teachers across the U.S. in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2 percent said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject.
However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48 percent -- about 12.5 percent of the total survey -- said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".
if that's the worst thing you have to worry about then I'd say your life aint so bad.
Godfather.
"Denial of evolution is unique to the United States. I mean, we're the world's most advanced technological — I mean, you could say Japan — but generally, the United States is where most of the innovations still happens. People still move to the United States. And that's largely because of the intellectual capital we have, the general understanding of science. When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in that, it holds everybody back, really.
"Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It's like, it's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You're just not going to get the right answer. Your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place.
"As my old professor, Carl Sagan, said, 'When you're in love you want to tell the world.' So, once in a while I get people that really — or that claim — they don't believe in evolution. And my response generally is 'Well, why not? Really, why not?' Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution. I mean, here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant stars that are just like our star but they're at a different point in their lifecycle. The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent.
"And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.
"It's just really a hard thing, it's really a hard thing. You know, in another couple of centuries that world view, I'm sure, will be, it just won't exist. There's no evidence for it."
if laughing at, yes, of course it is. How pompous to laugh at someone, anyone, just because their own views aren't the same as yours. Instead of laughing at someone, you could engage with them or you could walk away and not let it affect you.
and 84 percent aren't creationists....
A wise man called Hunter S. Thompson once wrote a beautiful thing about the edge:
http://meisterj.tumblr.com/post/2652639 ... s-thompson
'Months later, when I rarely saw the Angels, I still had the legacy of the big machine—four hundred pounds of chrome and deep red noise to take out on the Coast highway and cut loose at three in the morning, when all the cops were lurking over on the 101. My first crash had wrecked the bike completely and it took several months to have it rebuilt. After that i decided to tide it differently: I would stop pushing my luck on curves, always wear a helmet and try to keep within range of the nearest speed limit…my insurance had already been canceled and my driver's license was hanging by a thread.
...So it was always at night, like a werewolf, that I would take the thing out for an honest run down the coast. I would start in Golden Gate park, thinking only to run a few long curves to clear my head…but in a matter of minutes I’d be out at the beach with the sound of the engine in my ears, the surf booming up on the sea wall and a fine empty road stretching all the way down to Santa Cruz…not even a gas station in the whole seventy miles; the only public light along the way is an all-night diner down around Rockaway Beach.
...But with the throttle screwed on, there is only the barest margin, and no room at all for mistakes. It has to be done right... and that's when the strange music starts, when you stretch your luck so far that fear becomes exhilaration and vibrates along your arms. You can barely see at a hundred; the tears blow back so fast that they vaporize before they get to your ears. The only sounds are the wind and a dull roar floating back from the mufflers. You watch the white line and try to lean with it... howling through a turn to the right, then to the left, and down the long hill to Pacifica... letting off now, watching for cops, but only until the next dark stretch and another few seconds on the edge... The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. The others- the living- are those who pushed their luck as far as they felt they could handle it, and then pulled back, or slowed down, or did whatever they had to when it came time to choose between Now and Later.
But the edge is still Out there. Or maybe it's In. The association of motorcycles with LSD is no accident of publicity. They are both a means to an end, to the place of definitions.'
- (P.269-271) Hell’s Angels, a Strange and Terrible Saga of the Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs
Thanks for the morality lesson. If you had things your way, every comedian would need to retire today. I mean, how dare they laugh at anyone, right?
Let's try to reason with people that believe the Earth was created by 'God' 6000 years ago, and that dinosaurs walked the Earth with Jesus.
You offer nothing else until a few posts later when you try to turn it into a conversation about religion in education and about how we must be aware.
Bottom line, there are ways to start a conversation about a viewpoint that you disagree with and there are ways to stir the pot with the intolerance of your own personal worldview. This is an example of the latter.
A 'cryptic reference to Nazi Germany that doesn't quite say that American Christians are comparable to Nazis'? Nah, it was nothing of the sort, as you know. Though I see you've done your very best to try and twist my words. No kudos to you though, because your effort is lame and pathetic.
In my reply to the question from hostis: "but how would it affect you if that happened anyway?"
I said: "How did Nazism effect anybody outside of Germany? Dangerous ideas have dangerous consequences."
Nothing to do with comparing Christians to Nazis, as any honest person can see.
My personal Worldview isn't intolerant of anything except bullshit. And Creationism is bullshit as any rational thinking person will agree.
You're welcome.
Why would I want things my way? I am a pretty tolerant person so don't need everything to be 'my way'.
Why not try to reason with people who think and believe differently from you? You never know, they could learn something from you and you from them. And btw, most creationists don't believe that dinosaurs walked the earth with Jesus, they believe God put those bones there to test their faith. There is a difference. (but if I am wrong I am sure you will find some googled article that you can copy and paste <here>
I have actually read a few of his books a long time ago, awesome !
Godfather.
And then there is this guy, Charles Jackson, who I highly suspect is the illegitimate son of NASCAR great, Richard Petty.
I'm perfectly willing to engage with any creationists here. What does that have to do with my posting the original article in order to draw attention to their plan to build another museum in Kentucky?
Some creationists believe that dinosaurs walked the Earth with Jesus, and yes, I will back my statement up with a link to an article. Though clearly supporting my views with referenced links and sources bothers you. But then why would I care about that?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ ... ion-museum
While at the museum I spent some time talking to geologist Andrew Snelling. Another Australian, Snelling has a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney and worked in various capacities for the Australian mining industry before getting into "creation science" full time, first for the Texas-based Institute for Creation Research, and then since 2007 for Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.
I mention to Andrew that I'm surprised to see animatronic models and fossils of dinosaurs around the museum. "They were real, we have their bones … in fact the Bible even potentially describes creatures that were dinosaurs. We don't have to be afraid of the real evidence," he says. "We're looking at the fossil record – instead of being the order of creatures living and dying and evolving over millions of years – as the burial order during the flood. In other words, dinosaurs were alive during the pre-flood Earth. So were trilobites, so were people."
First you say you weren't being intolerant, now you are saying you are?
Ricky Gervais on Noah's Ark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln64DYflGT4