Well, actually I recall being taught Aether Theory in physics class with an explanation about why the theory was believed for a time and why it stopped being believed. It was a great way to teach how science works.
However, the example given does not actually say that the presentation taught the "Answers in Genesis" theories, it merely told the students about them and gave them the link to where they were presented. The most important part is that they gave not one but two links which countered the arguments made by "Answers in Genesis".
Your response does not surprise me, all too many people claim to want to teach children to think as an excuse to not teach them at all. Then they insist on only allowing them to see information which agrees with their own point of view. If you want children to think, you need to teach them to look at the arguments made on both sides of an issue. The "Answers in Genesis" arguments are believed by a large number of people. The reason for that is that they make some good arguments. You will not defeat those arguments by hand-waving and saying "real scientists don't believe that." You need to actually make the counter-arguments.
I did not read the article. However, the summary states that the presentation which refers students to the "Answers in Genesis" website also refers them to two sites which are critical of "Answers in Genesis". That seems like a good idea to me.
It is likely that students in Louisiana are going to come across the arguments made by "Answers in Genesis" sooner or later. Don't you think it would be a good idea for them to exposed to those arguments AND the counter-arguments at the same time?
Except of course as soon as the industrial pollution was reduced so that the dark butterflies were visible again, the butterflies reverted to the same colour they were before. It turns out that these butterflies actually come in both light and dark colours all the time. The difference being that when the bark of the trees they typically rest upon are white, birds see, and eat, the dark butterflies. When the bark is dark, the birds see, and eat, the white butterflies. As a result, when the bark is dark, there are few white butterflies, when the bark is white, there are few dark butterflies.
If the change involved actual evolution, the butterflies coloration would not have reverted as soon as the color of the bark did. (BTW, there are serious problems with the original study upon which that butterfly story is based.)
Personally, as a long-time reader of Archaeology magazine and enthusiastic amateur in the field, what I keep being surprised by is the field's routine assumptions that people before us were somehow stupid.
It derives from the "progressive" view that is taught so thoroughly in most schools (especially colleges and universities) that "new" means "better" and that history is irrevocably moving from worse to better.
And yet, the Roman Empire already bordered on Aksum those hundreds of years earlier...how stupid did someone have to be to think they were not trading?
Next they will announce the startling revelation that there was trade between the United States and Mexico over 100 years ago.
Seriously, have these people never looked at a map? The Roman Empire shared a border with the Empire mentioned in the article. Of course they were trading. That's what people do.
IF they can prove that he thought the prosecution would want his browser history, AND they can prove that he thought it would be incriminating, then I would be willing to find him guilty of these charges. Of course, those two things are rather difficult to prove.
Exactly WHAT makes Eve Ensler an expert on sex slaves? Would it not have been more useful to get someone who has worked for an extended period of time with women who had been sex slaves?
What I am saying is that I have seen enough of what Eve Ensler has promoted in the past to know that she has an agenda and everything she touches serves to advance that agenda.
I think you take the point to far, but I agree with you in principle. I did not get an adblocker until ads started to get so intrusive that I had to interact with the ad before I could read the content I had visited the site for in the first place. I do not object to ads which are on the side of the page, or even in the middle of the page, as long as they do not obscure the content. Even magazines now all come with intrusive ads. They have ads throughout them on different paper than the rest of the magazine so that when you try to flip through the magazine it always opens on an ad. To find an specific article you have to turn page by page from the closest ad (it used to be you could flip the magazine open to the somewhere close, then flip through the pages til you got there, or at least to within a page or two).
Good grief, dude. Not everything has some deep underlying 'message'.
Well, I would agree with you...except, they brought in the author of the 'Vagina Monologues", Eve Ensler, to consult on making the film. You do not bring her in unless you are putting in some deep underlying message which she would approve of. For that matter, Eve Ensler would not have consented to consult on the film unless she agreed with the message.
The wealthy ARE behind a more socialistic society. Of course the reason they are is because they recognize that socialism will make it easier to enslave others to do their will.
I should point out that the main point of my post was to give a description of the two viewpoints that was almost as far to the conservative side as your original post was to the liberal side.
OH yes, look how well those "smart" people have solved the problems of Baltimore and Detroit. Liberals have been running those cities for as long as I have been alive, yet the problems keep getting worse. Perhaps it is time to try something different?
As for your example of the DC metro area, perhaps you have not noticed, but the overwhelming majority of the people living there are liberals and vote for the Democratic Party.
Just because I pointed out that your argument was full of crap, does not mean I was making a counter argument. If you have an argument against the death penalty, feel free to make it.
Actually, if you look at the policies supported by the Koch brothers (as opposed to the propaganda about what they support) those policies make it easier for people to take care of themselves. Perhaps you mistook the Koch brothers for George Soros, Tom Steyer, or Herbert and Marion Sandler.
Your description of the "stereotypical" views of liberals vs conservatives is the LIBERAL view of the two positions. Here is a different take:
Conservatives are stereotypically the party that wants to reduce government to its basic functions (maintaining order, providing for the common defense, etc) and prefer to spend tax money on essential infrastructure (roads, police, military) leaving everything else up to associations of private citizens because they believe that most people are able to care for themselves and that the best way to care for those who can't do so is for private individuals to address the issue on a case by case basis.
Liberals are stereotypically the party that wants progressive solutions to everything, and prefer spending tax money making the bulk of the people dependent on the government and unable to take care of themselves so that the elites can enjoy a lavish lifestyle at the expense of everyone else.
Of course, if you check the stats historically, the murder rates in those countries was lower than the U.S. BEFORE those countries abolished the death penalty.
Having sex or not with Monica Lewinsky had beans to do with whether he forced himself on Jennifer Flowers...
Way to go on trying to mislead people about what happened. Bill Clinton did not perjure himself in a lawsuit about forcing himself on Jennifer Flowers (which of course never happened, since Jennifer Flowers was the woman he had a several years affair with).
However, Bill Clinton DID perjure himself in the case where Paula Jones sued him for sexual harassment. That was why his law license was suspended and why he was held in contempt of court. As to the woman he forced himself on, the only one I know of for sure was Juanita Broderick. The Anonymous Coward who replied to you did a much more thorough rebuttal of your post.
I'm reminded of hurricanes and how the public viewed them in the US prior to the introduction of the modern naming convention,...
Considering that naming hurricanes dates back to at least `1825 I think you are mistaken. More importantly, our current system dates back to just after World War II (although the naming convention has changed several times since then). Which means that the practice of naming hurricanes was instituted at the same time that we instituted a practice of tracking them so as to give advance warning and call for evacuation on anything other than a local scale. Basically, before we started naming hurricanes you were unlikely to know one was coming far enough in advance to make reasonable plans for evacuation. There are complicated reasons why people have changed how they react to evacuation warnings regarding hurricanes, but naming hurricanes plays an insignificant rile in that change.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, actually I recall being taught Aether Theory in physics class with an explanation about why the theory was believed for a time and why it stopped being believed. It was a great way to teach how science works.
However, the example given does not actually say that the presentation taught the "Answers in Genesis" theories, it merely told the students about them and gave them the link to where they were presented. The most important part is that they gave not one but two links which countered the arguments made by "Answers in Genesis".
Your response does not surprise me, all too many people claim to want to teach children to think as an excuse to not teach them at all. Then they insist on only allowing them to see information which agrees with their own point of view. If you want children to think, you need to teach them to look at the arguments made on both sides of an issue. The "Answers in Genesis" arguments are believed by a large number of people. The reason for that is that they make some good arguments. You will not defeat those arguments by hand-waving and saying "real scientists don't believe that." You need to actually make the counter-arguments.
I did not read the article. However, the summary states that the presentation which refers students to the "Answers in Genesis" website also refers them to two sites which are critical of "Answers in Genesis". That seems like a good idea to me.
It is likely that students in Louisiana are going to come across the arguments made by "Answers in Genesis" sooner or later. Don't you think it would be a good idea for them to exposed to those arguments AND the counter-arguments at the same time?
Except of course as soon as the industrial pollution was reduced so that the dark butterflies were visible again, the butterflies reverted to the same colour they were before. It turns out that these butterflies actually come in both light and dark colours all the time. The difference being that when the bark of the trees they typically rest upon are white, birds see, and eat, the dark butterflies. When the bark is dark, the birds see, and eat, the white butterflies. As a result, when the bark is dark, there are few white butterflies, when the bark is white, there are few dark butterflies. If the change involved actual evolution, the butterflies coloration would not have reverted as soon as the color of the bark did. (BTW, there are serious problems with the original study upon which that butterfly story is based.)
Interesting, so "new" means "better" to you, and you believe that Adolf Hitler was better than Caligula.
Personally, as a long-time reader of Archaeology magazine and enthusiastic amateur in the field, what I keep being surprised by is the field's routine assumptions that people before us were somehow stupid.
It derives from the "progressive" view that is taught so thoroughly in most schools (especially colleges and universities) that "new" means "better" and that history is irrevocably moving from worse to better.
And yet, the Roman Empire already bordered on Aksum those hundreds of years earlier...how stupid did someone have to be to think they were not trading?
Umm, at the time, Egypt was part of the Roman Empire. So, based on the way Rome was running its empire, trade with Egypt WAS trade with Rome.
Next they will announce the startling revelation that there was trade between the United States and Mexico over 100 years ago.
Seriously, have these people never looked at a map? The Roman Empire shared a border with the Empire mentioned in the article. Of course they were trading. That's what people do.
IF they can prove that he thought the prosecution would want his browser history, AND they can prove that he thought it would be incriminating, then I would be willing to find him guilty of these charges. Of course, those two things are rather difficult to prove.
Heck, you don't even have to be smart. You just have to be able to think the right way. Other than that, I absolutely agree with what you posted.
Well, I guess if you look at it that way. However, it would make more sense to bring in someone with actual expertise on sex slavery.
Exactly WHAT makes Eve Ensler an expert on sex slaves? Would it not have been more useful to get someone who has worked for an extended period of time with women who had been sex slaves?
What I am saying is that I have seen enough of what Eve Ensler has promoted in the past to know that she has an agenda and everything she touches serves to advance that agenda.
I think you take the point to far, but I agree with you in principle. I did not get an adblocker until ads started to get so intrusive that I had to interact with the ad before I could read the content I had visited the site for in the first place. I do not object to ads which are on the side of the page, or even in the middle of the page, as long as they do not obscure the content. Even magazines now all come with intrusive ads. They have ads throughout them on different paper than the rest of the magazine so that when you try to flip through the magazine it always opens on an ad. To find an specific article you have to turn page by page from the closest ad (it used to be you could flip the magazine open to the somewhere close, then flip through the pages til you got there, or at least to within a page or two).
Good grief, dude. Not everything has some deep underlying 'message'.
Well, I would agree with you...except, they brought in the author of the 'Vagina Monologues", Eve Ensler, to consult on making the film. You do not bring her in unless you are putting in some deep underlying message which she would approve of. For that matter, Eve Ensler would not have consented to consult on the film unless she agreed with the message.
The wealthy ARE behind a more socialistic society. Of course the reason they are is because they recognize that socialism will make it easier to enslave others to do their will.
I should point out that the main point of my post was to give a description of the two viewpoints that was almost as far to the conservative side as your original post was to the liberal side.
OH yes, look how well those "smart" people have solved the problems of Baltimore and Detroit. Liberals have been running those cities for as long as I have been alive, yet the problems keep getting worse. Perhaps it is time to try something different?
As for your example of the DC metro area, perhaps you have not noticed, but the overwhelming majority of the people living there are liberals and vote for the Democratic Party.
Just because I pointed out that your argument was full of crap, does not mean I was making a counter argument. If you have an argument against the death penalty, feel free to make it.
Actually, if you look at the policies supported by the Koch brothers (as opposed to the propaganda about what they support) those policies make it easier for people to take care of themselves. Perhaps you mistook the Koch brothers for George Soros, Tom Steyer, or Herbert and Marion Sandler.
As opposed to the liberals, who are actively trying to return us to a fuedal economic system.
Your description of the "stereotypical" views of liberals vs conservatives is the LIBERAL view of the two positions. Here is a different take: Conservatives are stereotypically the party that wants to reduce government to its basic functions (maintaining order, providing for the common defense, etc) and prefer to spend tax money on essential infrastructure (roads, police, military) leaving everything else up to associations of private citizens because they believe that most people are able to care for themselves and that the best way to care for those who can't do so is for private individuals to address the issue on a case by case basis.
Liberals are stereotypically the party that wants progressive solutions to everything, and prefer spending tax money making the bulk of the people dependent on the government and unable to take care of themselves so that the elites can enjoy a lavish lifestyle at the expense of everyone else.
Of course, if you check the stats historically, the murder rates in those countries was lower than the U.S. BEFORE those countries abolished the death penalty.
Well that is a very interesting claim...that proves upon examination to be FALSE. In fact women constitute 80% of the student population of veterinary schools. It may once have been true, but it is no longer so.
Having sex or not with Monica Lewinsky had beans to do with whether he forced himself on Jennifer Flowers...
Way to go on trying to mislead people about what happened. Bill Clinton did not perjure himself in a lawsuit about forcing himself on Jennifer Flowers (which of course never happened, since Jennifer Flowers was the woman he had a several years affair with).
However, Bill Clinton DID perjure himself in the case where Paula Jones sued him for sexual harassment. That was why his law license was suspended and why he was held in contempt of court. As to the woman he forced himself on, the only one I know of for sure was Juanita Broderick. The Anonymous Coward who replied to you did a much more thorough rebuttal of your post.
I'm reminded of hurricanes and how the public viewed them in the US prior to the introduction of the modern naming convention, ...
Considering that naming hurricanes dates back to at least `1825 I think you are mistaken. More importantly, our current system dates back to just after World War II (although the naming convention has changed several times since then). Which means that the practice of naming hurricanes was instituted at the same time that we instituted a practice of tracking them so as to give advance warning and call for evacuation on anything other than a local scale. Basically, before we started naming hurricanes you were unlikely to know one was coming far enough in advance to make reasonable plans for evacuation. There are complicated reasons why people have changed how they react to evacuation warnings regarding hurricanes, but naming hurricanes plays an insignificant rile in that change.
Just because a lot of small businesses do this does not mean that it is actually legal for them to do so.