Biologically, it would be limited to friends and family,
Sorry, but no. Our biology is a bit ahead of where you think it is. You're assuming a strictly competitive environment where biological agents directly compete with their peers to pass on their genes. That's an interesting scenario, and yeah, it comes up quite often in really spectacular ways. But usually we're social creatures. Possibly even eusocial like ants and bees. And that's not an unnatural aspect. We're hardwired to work together. We're social animals.
So even on a biological level there are rules, or at least suggested guidelines, for "thou shalt not murder your neighbor".
Oh, right. Sorry about that. I was stuck in the states there for a bit. How about "Average American accent"?
But, since apparently Hollywood has decided that "mid-west" is the norm, that means that the standard that other countries are trying to achieve is American standard. A while ago you could spot the Indian guy who learned British standard. That's less common now. So when people try to reduce their accent, they're going to try emulating American standard. So, sorry for being ethnocentric, but there's a good reason for it.
Wait, we have an accent?
I mean, there are jokes about California "valley girls" and Brooklyn accents, but those are stereotypes and most people from the coasts don't actually talk like that. So... if the universal average of the English language is the "Mid-West" accent... wouldn't that mean we don't have an accent?
since I do not see any other species that have evolved beyond simple genetic mutations
Whales have hip bones because their ancestors used to walk on land.
Horses and donkeys used to be the same species but are at the tail end of specification. (That's splitting into two different species)
Panda's are developing a thumb so they can strip leaves off of bamboo.
Snakes lost their limbs so they could fit through small spaces. Specifically, burrows of small tasty mammals.
E-Coli has been allowed to naturally evolve in a lab so it can survive on citric acid.
Dinosaurs developed wings and flight for extra mobility when everything went to shit. They turned into birds.
Portions of these changes are due to mutations, but a lot of it is simply genetic recombination. Yay sex.
But all of them are a sum of many such events building up into larger events.
I, on the other other hand, gleefully claim that if you don't believe in evolution, in some form, then you're pretty damn stupid. Of course I also think willful ignorance is equivalent to stupidity.
Not "picket", but "study". And wind farms is actually a pretty bad example for my case because they HAVE studied how many birds those windmills kill. I'm not sure what a good example would be, but a conservative would try to point out an example where environmentalists try to get some dirt on the coal companies but turn a blind eye to... uh... ethanol or something.
Nobody, not even Dawkins, uses evolution as "proof" against religion. Every skeptic knows
Whoa there. Did you just use absolutes when talking about diverse groups of politically active people? Come on, look through the thread, you'll find that guy who claims religions not accepting evolution invalidates them. He's modded down, for a reason, but he's still there.
I accept the teachings of the church in the Bible; however, I also accept the theory of evolution based on my studies of bioinformatics related subjects
Uhh.... You know the pope is totally hip with evolution right? There is no "however" statement needed there. There could be an "also" maybe. Or maybe you just need to be a better catholic. (So go feel guilty about your shortcomings off in that corner.)
Consider the claims that man made CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm. Much of the research upon which scientists have based these claims is not public
Oh. You're one of... "those". Riiiiight. Well. The link between CO2 and average global temperature is pretty damn rock solid. So your shortcomming kind of extend into the science/engineering realm too. (checking your facts is basic engineering.) Double duty in the corner I guess.
If you had claimed that there are liberal forces trying to hype the threat and immediacy of global warming and climate change, then you might have had something. You'd be right. There are people trying to push social changes and a lot of them are believing their own hype. There's a chance it could still be that bad, just less of a chance when you take into account the political bias.
elimination of DDT, etc. span back as early as the 1970s
And look, we're not going to kill off our national bird anymore. YAY success stories!
When science enters the realm of public policy,
That's called sociology. It deals pretty heavily with all those fluffy squishy things that these meatbags drone on about and how to bypass them to achieve better sales metrics.
So... hmmm. Yeah, ok I see your point. As a counterpoint though, think of what it means to be socially conservative, and how they've treated minorities, women, homosexuals, migrants, and the generally downtrodden masses. "Dehumanizing" is a word I would use.
Sociologist certainly have some crazy ideas about how to deal with miscreants and that sort, but the science has proposed that treating them less abusively and more like errant children yields better results. For the miscreants at least. The socially conservative viewpoint, I believe, would claim that it encourages miscreant behavior. Which is understandable, if the threat of being down-and-out permanently isn't there, there's less motivation to avoid it. But it's the sociologists that want to treat criminals like humans, and socially conservatives that want to put them in the chair.
Well, yes. That's a well known trend. Conservatives are older, more cynical, close minded, distrustful, experienced, and with more burn-outs. Liberals are younger, more naive, open minded, trusting, with faith in the open possibilities ahead of them. Which translates into suckers and people willing to try stupid shit. Which stance is more appropriate depends on the social and economic climate at the time.
But to say that you distrust scientists, but science is totally hip, doesn't make too much sense. How else do you get your science other than through scientists? I mean, if I said that I don't trust any politicians, it's really hard to say I'm for any legislation. Or if I said that religion X has a really solid view of the world, but all the members of religion X are nut-jobs.
It's one of those derived things. One makes or gets summed up into the other.
Similar to that bullshit line where the preacher vehemently hates gay sex and gay culture, but with some sort of mental backflips claims to love the gays.
Reagan was also fiscally conservative (though somewhat of a big spender)
I'm sorry. Wut? Wasn't he also the one with the trickle-down economics and cut taxes for all his rich friends? Didn't he start the trend of borrowing money to pay off his political plan? Regan was the first conservative president to ditch the fiscally conservative part.
Wouldn't the environmental movement be subverting science if it only funds, pushes, talks about environmentally damaging industrial practices?
Or, while it's a minority, there is a portion of people out there that try to use evolution as proof against religion. Yeah, every side has their retards.
says Sarah Henry, 39, an investment manager who took several classes, including some in HTML, the basic language of the Web,
I'm a professional software engineer, and I don't know a 401k from a bond, but I just have to say that is so damn cute. She's learning HTML. ooooOOOOOoooo HyperText Markup Language! It's the BASIC LANGUAGE OF THE INTERNET you know. She can't make a site, but she can understand how the language functions in the Internet.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Oh. Man. I'm sorry. I know I'm being an ass here. But that's just SO ADORABLE! For some inexplicable reason I feel the need to haze some pre-froshes.
Sigh, oh, I know I know. Everyone has to start somewhere. It's just the widdle bitty baby steps made by other professionals into my field are HILARIOUS!
Who had the racist sexist asshole boss for 2 years? Who had to fake a laugh at his stupid jokes? Was that you or me? Oh that's right, I'm the one who knows that they joked about hiring a female IT worker, but eventually accepted that if they did that, then HR really would come down and fire them all. I got that job because I could code. It also really helped that I was a white male.
How do you know the soldering job wasn't the good one?
Uh.... because we were both trying to be engineers, not technicians? It wasn't a glorious programming job, but it was my first, and getting some work experience helps a lot when appling for jobs. And because IT'S SOLDERING WORK vs PROGRAMMING.
You are just brainwashed with white male guilt.
No, I'm really not. I've experienced the benefits of being a white male. Directly. That's called learning from experience, not brainwashing.
It's an antedotal personal experience, but it's real.
Correct, I am not promotting discrimination against Males. I am telling soneone to get over the existing discrimination and deal with it. I am giving him some perspective over the scope and scale of the discrimination that he's facing. It's really not that bad.
I was also being a horrible sexist while doing so, "man up nancy" "panties in a twist", but that was for comedic value. And no one called me on it. So apparently you CAN be horribly sexist against one group as long as you argue for their side.
Your source seems very anecdotal to me.
But actually, I do feel for you. I'm fairly atheistic and essentially had to hide it for 3 years as I worked for a... more traditional employer. Also had to make up a bullshit story about being "apolitical" when the boss's friend asked me to weigh in on a controversial topic. Sucks being the minority. Also sucks when the minority is annoying as hell about their minority status.
But... just an idea. Maybe you could show a spine and stick up for the girls? I mean, the knight in shining armor schtick has some nice benefits. And every time I meet a Jehovah's Witness they try to.. I think the term is actually "witness" me. They're usually pretty nice about it after you simply say you're not interested.
Anyway, you hate muslims. So congrats on being a bigot walterbyrd (182728). We have your type over here in the states too. It's so refreshing to find common ground!
Oh Jesus Christ, MAN UP nancy!
While I always understood the importance of equality, affirmative action kinda miffed me in my younger years. Then in the slump of the housing fallout I got a job over an Indian with a PHD. And in that moment all the scholarships I couldn't apply for and all the Homers and Peter Griffins didn't matter one bit to me.
Also, looking back, at my internship there was me and a black guy. Both computer engineers. He was given a soldering iron, I was given a programming job.
Now, neither of those bosses were tons of fun to work with. And I imagine the minorities in both cases would have stronger views on the subject. But once you get out into the real world, fact is, it's a white man's world. Whatever petty affirmative action initiative, politically skewed bias, or yet another punching bag on a sitcom, it's a paltry compensation to the injustice that goes on every workday. When was the last time you had to hope a female foreigner with a different religion and no interest in your football team would give you a job?
So don't get your panties in a twist, sweetcheeks.
Colonise
Dude, they're just immigrants.
They aren't melting well, and that's causing problems, which turns you into a bigotted fascist.
Muslims reproduce more
Yeah, they probably do. Holdover habits from the old country. Give em a generation or two and they'll match 1st world standards. (Isn't a slumping birthrate an issue for Europe?)
they also demand French people to adapt to Muslim costumes
Calling it a costume makes you a fascist bigot.
But cite some sources for this. Here in the USA I have zero casual knowledge of this and I don't see it as having a snowballs chance in hell of actually happening. I mean, the immigrants can whine all they want, but that doesn't mean the girls have to cover up.
No. Don't screw that saying. It's a good saying. Voltaire knew his shit. This is the exact point in time that you need to think about it. I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it.
look at what it's done.
What, free speech!? In the last few decades we have had the civil rights movement, blacks are people too. The sexual revolution, women are people too. And despite what a lot of people think, gays and lesbians are people as well. Sorry if such thoughts seem immoral to you. The freaking INTERNET has made the world such a better place is so many little ways it's almost impossible to describe. It also brought with it a lot of change that is neither good or bad. The world is simply smaller, you're closer to your neighbors now. Even when they're in France.
And yes, people CAN say whatever they want. That's a good thing. It's up to you to decide what to listen to, what to argue against, and what to support. Silencing other is not the right way to do it. If you don't want to give them a second thought, you're completely free to do so.
Screw it. Time to say there are absolutes, and some things are wrong, and should be censored.
And I say no. Scew not. It is NEVER the time to give in to your depressing cynism and claim that censorship is good. Others have explained to you the pragmatic reasons for leaving these sites open and legitimate reasons why people would go to them. But I feel the need to argue for the ideological reason. Free speech is paramount. And I will defend your right to look like a fascist dumbass. To the death.
(I mean, would you want RIAA lobbyists convincing congress that filesharers promote terrorism?)
Ultimately though, yeah, there actually ARE absolutes where censorship is allowable. I mean, you can't stand at the edge of my lawn with a bullhorn at 3am. Too many times. That's just being an ass. But in this specific case, and in general, yeah, woo! Go free speech!
Holy HELL dude. Listen to me.
Thricely I say I agree with you, Thricely I acknowledge that the phenomena known as religion should be studied. This is a good idea. On this you and I are in agreement. You don't have to argue about it any more. No one is arguing except you.
It's a good idea to learn about religion because it's important to understand why people think what they do. So we should teach about it in a sociology class.
Religion, and religious views, is not a science. The study of how people deal with religion, and how religion deals with people, falls under sociology. It does not fall under biology next to evolution. Teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution is in NO WAY related to teaching kids the sociological impact of religion. Not teaching kids creationism in NO WAY keeps religion out of the sociology class.
Oh god. "The pony model". I have witness the birth of a phrase. Young and vulnerable, I fear for it's future. To be abused and twisted by board execs and marketing monsters. The horror... The horror....
Dude, re-read the end of my post. I AGREE that religion is an important thing to learn about and study. Just not as a science. Please stop harping on things that aren't being argued against. I get it.
Again I don't see how a teacher saying "creationists don't like evolution because it doesn't match with their belief that the bibles 6 days of creation is literally true, or that the earth is on the back of a giant turtle, or...".
You don't see how that does what?
Is this an example of a teacher pointing out the criticisms of evolution? You don't see how that could be bad? Well alright then, how about we give half an hour in the history class to the holocaust deniers? Or some time to hear the white supremacist views on the civil war? There could be a footnote about homeopathy and trephination as alternatives to real medicine in biology class? Come on, teach the controversy!
and in a loose sense it is true:
THIS! This right here is where I take objection. It's that little wheedling wedge that your type tries to drive into everyone's heads constantly. You yourself turn about and call it myth. You claim that it's important even if it isn't true. Ok, sure, whatever, I know a lot about Orcs and Elves I guess, but THE INSTANT that you try to claim some "loose" sense of truth to creationism is the moment I stop listening to anything you say because you obviously have an agenda and you're working on teaching that lie to my kids.
Slashdot Mirror
Biologically, it would be limited to friends and family,
Sorry, but no. Our biology is a bit ahead of where you think it is. You're assuming a strictly competitive environment where biological agents directly compete with their peers to pass on their genes. That's an interesting scenario, and yeah, it comes up quite often in really spectacular ways. But usually we're social creatures. Possibly even eusocial like ants and bees. And that's not an unnatural aspect. We're hardwired to work together. We're social animals.
So even on a biological level there are rules, or at least suggested guidelines, for "thou shalt not murder your neighbor".
pst, just so you know, the reason you got flamebait-modded was entirely due equating Apple products with "scientific advancements".
Oh, right. Sorry about that. I was stuck in the states there for a bit. How about "Average American accent"?
But, since apparently Hollywood has decided that "mid-west" is the norm, that means that the standard that other countries are trying to achieve is American standard. A while ago you could spot the Indian guy who learned British standard. That's less common now. So when people try to reduce their accent, they're going to try emulating American standard. So, sorry for being ethnocentric, but there's a good reason for it.
Ouch, that's pretty harsh on them thar Texans.
...Mid-West accent...
Wait, we have an accent?
I mean, there are jokes about California "valley girls" and Brooklyn accents, but those are stereotypes and most people from the coasts don't actually talk like that. So... if the universal average of the English language is the "Mid-West" accent... wouldn't that mean we don't have an accent?
since I do not see any other species that have evolved beyond simple genetic mutations
Whales have hip bones because their ancestors used to walk on land.
Horses and donkeys used to be the same species but are at the tail end of specification. (That's splitting into two different species)
Panda's are developing a thumb so they can strip leaves off of bamboo.
Snakes lost their limbs so they could fit through small spaces. Specifically, burrows of small tasty mammals.
E-Coli has been allowed to naturally evolve in a lab so it can survive on citric acid.
Dinosaurs developed wings and flight for extra mobility when everything went to shit. They turned into birds.
Portions of these changes are due to mutations, but a lot of it is simply genetic recombination. Yay sex.
But all of them are a sum of many such events building up into larger events.
Also, dcbriansw, evolution is both a theory and a fact. In an extremely similar way that gravity is both a theory and a fact.
I, on the other other hand, gleefully claim that if you don't believe in evolution, in some form, then you're pretty damn stupid. Of course I also think willful ignorance is equivalent to stupidity.
Nobody, not even Dawkins, uses evolution as "proof" against religion. Every skeptic knows
Whoa there. Did you just use absolutes when talking about diverse groups of politically active people?
Come on, look through the thread, you'll find that guy who claims religions not accepting evolution invalidates them. He's modded down, for a reason, but he's still there.
I accept the teachings of the church in the Bible; however, I also accept the theory of evolution based on my studies of bioinformatics related subjects
Uhh.... You know the pope is totally hip with evolution right? There is no "however" statement needed there. There could be an "also" maybe. Or maybe you just need to be a better catholic. (So go feel guilty about your shortcomings off in that corner.)
Consider the claims that man made CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm. Much of the research upon which scientists have based these claims is not public
Oh. You're one of... "those". Riiiiight. Well. The link between CO2 and average global temperature is pretty damn rock solid. So your shortcomming kind of extend into the science/engineering realm too. (checking your facts is basic engineering.) Double duty in the corner I guess.
If you had claimed that there are liberal forces trying to hype the threat and immediacy of global warming and climate change, then you might have had something. You'd be right. There are people trying to push social changes and a lot of them are believing their own hype. There's a chance it could still be that bad, just less of a chance when you take into account the political bias.
elimination of DDT, etc. span back as early as the 1970s
And look, we're not going to kill off our national bird anymore. YAY success stories!
When science enters the realm of public policy,
That's called sociology. It deals pretty heavily with all those fluffy squishy things that these meatbags drone on about and how to bypass them to achieve better sales metrics.
So... hmmm. Yeah, ok I see your point. As a counterpoint though, think of what it means to be socially conservative, and how they've treated minorities, women, homosexuals, migrants, and the generally downtrodden masses. "Dehumanizing" is a word I would use.
Sociologist certainly have some crazy ideas about how to deal with miscreants and that sort, but the science has proposed that treating them less abusively and more like errant children yields better results. For the miscreants at least. The socially conservative viewpoint, I believe, would claim that it encourages miscreant behavior. Which is understandable, if the threat of being down-and-out permanently isn't there, there's less motivation to avoid it. But it's the sociologists that want to treat criminals like humans, and socially conservatives that want to put them in the chair.
Well, yes. That's a well known trend. Conservatives are older, more cynical, close minded, distrustful, experienced, and with more burn-outs. Liberals are younger, more naive, open minded, trusting, with faith in the open possibilities ahead of them. Which translates into suckers and people willing to try stupid shit. Which stance is more appropriate depends on the social and economic climate at the time.
But to say that you distrust scientists, but science is totally hip, doesn't make too much sense. How else do you get your science other than through scientists? I mean, if I said that I don't trust any politicians, it's really hard to say I'm for any legislation. Or if I said that religion X has a really solid view of the world, but all the members of religion X are nut-jobs.
It's one of those derived things. One makes or gets summed up into the other.
Similar to that bullshit line where the preacher vehemently hates gay sex and gay culture, but with some sort of mental backflips claims to love the gays.
Reagan was also fiscally conservative (though somewhat of a big spender)
I'm sorry. Wut? Wasn't he also the one with the trickle-down economics and cut taxes for all his rich friends? Didn't he start the trend of borrowing money to pay off his political plan? Regan was the first conservative president to ditch the fiscally conservative part.
Know your history, son.
Wouldn't the environmental movement be subverting science if it only funds, pushes, talks about environmentally damaging industrial practices?
Or, while it's a minority, there is a portion of people out there that try to use evolution as proof against religion. Yeah, every side has their retards.
One-sided science, isn't.
says Sarah Henry, 39, an investment manager who took several classes, including some in HTML, the basic language of the Web,
I'm a professional software engineer, and I don't know a 401k from a bond, but I just have to say that is so damn cute. She's learning HTML. ooooOOOOOoooo HyperText Markup Language! It's the BASIC LANGUAGE OF THE INTERNET you know. She can't make a site, but she can understand how the language functions in the Internet.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Oh. Man. I'm sorry. I know I'm being an ass here. But that's just SO ADORABLE! For some inexplicable reason I feel the need to haze some pre-froshes.
Sigh, oh, I know I know. Everyone has to start somewhere. It's just the widdle bitty baby steps made by other professionals into my field are HILARIOUS!
How do you know the soldering job wasn't the good one?
Uh.... because we were both trying to be engineers, not technicians? It wasn't a glorious programming job, but it was my first, and getting some work experience helps a lot when appling for jobs. And because IT'S SOLDERING WORK vs PROGRAMMING.
You are just brainwashed with white male guilt.
No, I'm really not. I've experienced the benefits of being a white male. Directly. That's called learning from experience, not brainwashing. It's an antedotal personal experience, but it's real.
Correct, I am not promotting discrimination against Males. I am telling soneone to get over the existing discrimination and deal with it. I am giving him some perspective over the scope and scale of the discrimination that he's facing. It's really not that bad.
I was also being a horrible sexist while doing so, "man up nancy" "panties in a twist", but that was for comedic value. And no one called me on it. So apparently you CAN be horribly sexist against one group as long as you argue for their side.
Sure you were Walter Byrd. Sure.
Your source seems very anecdotal to me.
But actually, I do feel for you. I'm fairly atheistic and essentially had to hide it for 3 years as I worked for a... more traditional employer. Also had to make up a bullshit story about being "apolitical" when the boss's friend asked me to weigh in on a controversial topic. Sucks being the minority. Also sucks when the minority is annoying as hell about their minority status.
But... just an idea. Maybe you could show a spine and stick up for the girls? I mean, the knight in shining armor schtick has some nice benefits. And every time I meet a Jehovah's Witness they try to.. I think the term is actually "witness" me. They're usually pretty nice about it after you simply say you're not interested.
Anyway, you hate muslims. So congrats on being a bigot walterbyrd (182728). We have your type over here in the states too. It's so refreshing to find common ground!
ppppfffttt!! HAHAHA OH MAN! I misspell a word WHILE LINKING TO A DICTIONARY! That is probably my classiest moment ever.
You know what? Bravo cowboy for fighting the good fight. After so much of it, I've simply burned out.
Oh Jesus Christ, MAN UP nancy!
While I always understood the importance of equality, affirmative action kinda miffed me in my younger years. Then in the slump of the housing fallout I got a job over an Indian with a PHD. And in that moment all the scholarships I couldn't apply for and all the Homers and Peter Griffins didn't matter one bit to me.
Also, looking back, at my internship there was me and a black guy. Both computer engineers. He was given a soldering iron, I was given a programming job.
Now, neither of those bosses were tons of fun to work with. And I imagine the minorities in both cases would have stronger views on the subject. But once you get out into the real world, fact is, it's a white man's world. Whatever petty affirmative action initiative, politically skewed bias, or yet another punching bag on a sitcom, it's a paltry compensation to the injustice that goes on every workday. When was the last time you had to hope a female foreigner with a different religion and no interest in your football team would give you a job?
So don't get your panties in a twist, sweetcheeks.
France is currently being colonized by Muslims.
Colonise
Dude, they're just immigrants.
They aren't melting well, and that's causing problems, which turns you into a bigotted fascist.
Muslims reproduce more
Yeah, they probably do. Holdover habits from the old country. Give em a generation or two and they'll match 1st world standards. (Isn't a slumping birthrate an issue for Europe?)
they also demand French people to adapt to Muslim costumes
Calling it a costume makes you a fascist bigot.
But cite some sources for this. Here in the USA I have zero casual knowledge of this and I don't see it as having a snowballs chance in hell of actually happening. I mean, the immigrants can whine all they want, but that doesn't mean the girls have to cover up.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it.
look at what it's done.
What, free speech!? In the last few decades we have had the civil rights movement, blacks are people too. The sexual revolution, women are people too. And despite what a lot of people think, gays and lesbians are people as well. Sorry if such thoughts seem immoral to you. The freaking INTERNET has made the world such a better place is so many little ways it's almost impossible to describe. It also brought with it a lot of change that is neither good or bad. The world is simply smaller, you're closer to your neighbors now. Even when they're in France.
And yes, people CAN say whatever they want. That's a good thing. It's up to you to decide what to listen to, what to argue against, and what to support. Silencing other is not the right way to do it. If you don't want to give them a second thought, you're completely free to do so.
Screw it. Time to say there are absolutes, and some things are wrong, and should be censored.
And I say no. Scew not. It is NEVER the time to give in to your depressing cynism and claim that censorship is good. Others have explained to you the pragmatic reasons for leaving these sites open and legitimate reasons why people would go to them. But I feel the need to argue for the ideological reason. Free speech is paramount. And I will defend your right to look like a fascist dumbass. To the death.
(I mean, would you want RIAA lobbyists convincing congress that filesharers promote terrorism?)
Ultimately though, yeah, there actually ARE absolutes where censorship is allowable. I mean, you can't stand at the edge of my lawn with a bullhorn at 3am. Too many times. That's just being an ass. But in this specific case, and in general, yeah, woo! Go free speech!
It's honestly refreshing to see good ol' fashioned bigoted intolerance somewhere other than America. See, this sort of thing pops up everywhere.
Holy HELL dude. Listen to me.
Thricely I say I agree with you, Thricely I acknowledge that the phenomena known as religion should be studied. This is a good idea. On this you and I are in agreement. You don't have to argue about it any more. No one is arguing except you.
It's a good idea to learn about religion because it's important to understand why people think what they do. So we should teach about it in a sociology class.
Religion, and religious views, is not a science. The study of how people deal with religion, and how religion deals with people, falls under sociology. It does not fall under biology next to evolution. Teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution is in NO WAY related to teaching kids the sociological impact of religion. Not teaching kids creationism in NO WAY keeps religion out of the sociology class.
Oh god. "The pony model". I have witness the birth of a phrase. Young and vulnerable, I fear for it's future. To be abused and twisted by board execs and marketing monsters. The horror... The horror....
Again I don't see how a teacher saying "creationists don't like evolution because it doesn't match with their belief that the bibles 6 days of creation is literally true, or that the earth is on the back of a giant turtle, or ...".
You don't see how that does what?
Is this an example of a teacher pointing out the criticisms of evolution? You don't see how that could be bad? Well alright then, how about we give half an hour in the history class to the holocaust deniers? Or some time to hear the white supremacist views on the civil war? There could be a footnote about homeopathy and trephination as alternatives to real medicine in biology class? Come on, teach the controversy!
and in a loose sense it is true:
THIS! This right here is where I take objection. It's that little wheedling wedge that your type tries to drive into everyone's heads constantly. You yourself turn about and call it myth. You claim that it's important even if it isn't true. Ok, sure, whatever, I know a lot about Orcs and Elves I guess, but THE INSTANT that you try to claim some "loose" sense of truth to creationism is the moment I stop listening to anything you say because you obviously have an agenda and you're working on teaching that lie to my kids.