f you don't want your kids presented with any other ideas than what you think they should have, then I suggest you home school them. I'm not suggesting that teachers should be teaching the Bible, but to censor them from teaching anything other than what is in the textbook is just that, censorship.
Uhm, WRONG.
the textbook is approved for teaching specific subjects. Straying off to wherever the teacher feels like going is not education. There is a neat thing called a curriculum. I plan on teaching my kids my own version of the world also, but I am not going to force the world to tolerate my version of events. You are proposing teaching non-science in science classes. I would much rather have to add in my views on top of the generally accepted instead of having to explain away items that should not have been presented in the first place. The act of being taught non-science in science class wastes time. Students in a science class should be taught the scientific method. Part of the scientific method is to challenge what is already thought to be known. All this bill does is allows teacher to challenge evolutionary theory. THAT is what the scientific method is all about. So, by saying that teachers should not be allowed to challenge evolution, you are proposing teaching non-science in science classes. Science starts with asking questions. Step 1 of the Scientific Method is Define the question. If you are not allowed to question evolution, you are stopping before you even start!
Maybe you're thinking about spelling or history or something where you blindly memorize facts. That is not what you learn in science class.
If the teachers are doing their job, then they are already teaching the scientific process, which by its vary nature teaches one to question and improve our theories. And this bill allows teachers to do that. Why is it such a bad idea?
Allowing the teachers to teach anything they feel like without being answerable to anyone is just a recipe for disaster. That is NOT what this bill does. And I agree with you here.
As much as I would like to think that left to their own devices they would do a good job, prior evidence seems to contradict that. We have academic standards for a reason, and, at least in the scientific field that means teaching the currently most accepted theory, and where credible alternatives exist at least mentioning them. ID however is not a credible alternative to evolution, and at its core requires the existence of a supernatural being which is clearly the province of religion, not science. You would after all not want the science teachers teaching students theories on how to detect ghosts, or organizing field trips to local "haunted" locations. Yes such an activity might be educational (if for no other reason than to teach them how to debunk certain theories), but given the limited time available to teach them, and the broad body of well established and tested theories, there is simply not enough time to properly cover all the respected theories even without requiring (or allowing) the teaching of less well founded theories. One of the best science teachers I had gave the class and experiment to determine if salt water boiled faster than distilled water. Half the class got salt water and the other half used fresh. We all grabbed our stop watches and took to our burners and timed how long it took for the water to boil and compared our results. We all got different answers. The point of the lesson was not to determine whether salt water boiled faster, but to show us that the experiment was flawed. What made the difference was the burner itself and that our method of determining which boiled faster was flawed. She taught the entire class a lesson we will never forget and she did not tell us a single thing.
The teacher could ask "is evolution fact?" and then say "prove it". It's not really the answer you come up with in this case, but if you applied the scientific method to get there. If you can teach the students to think, they will come up with the correct conclusion on their own.
I'm not saying we should be teaching ID, or religion in any shape or form. This bill simply allows teachers to question the validity of evolution and challenge the students to think about it rather than memorize data. Isn't that a good thing?
Of course you didn't say religion should be taught. That's exactly the same bogus argument the folks in Dover, PA tried to use when they wanted to teach Intelligent Design in a science classroom. They never explicitly said they wanted to teach a religious viewpoint, they just said that everything could be explained by some unknown, untestable, supposedly omnipotent being who has existed since before there was a time. It's a neat dodge to try and avoid sounding like they wanted to teach their religious viewpoint, and ONLY their religious viewpoint, when it came to Evolution. So no, it's not a strawman argument. It's letting people know where you're coming from.
No, you are letting people know where the good folks in Dover are coming from. Not me. But since you have incorrectly guessed my views, I guess I should tell them to you. I believe in evolution. I have studied Creationism and weighed its points against those of evolution. I have decided that while Creationists make some valid points, they are trying to explain things after the fact. Their views constantly morph depending on the latest scientific discover that disproves their last point. They never stop to think that evolution is a much miraculous thing than God simply saying "let it be". I see evolution as a tool of God, not disproof of God. However, had I not been presented with conflicting ideas, I would have never come to that conclusion. I would have either ended up where you are or where the upstanding patriots of Dover are. I have made up my own mind and believe that you are both right, to some degree, and neither of you should have the right to silence the other.
Every time someone says this, the reasons they believe Evolution falls short have been answered. Repeatedly. In detail. The problem is that people like you don't want to hear the reasons why their issues with Evolution's supposed shortcomings are not relevant to the discussion because they've already been answered. Yet, these same people, even after being given a clear, concise reason as to why their issues are not relevant will still insist at the next forum to raise the exact same issues. That is why there is no need to go into the suppposed shortcomings. Only people who don't believe Evolution is real believe it has shortcomings.
You accuse people of not wanting to hear opposing views (I've bolded it), yet, YOU don't want to hear opposing views. You are what you are accusing others of being. Again, you've assumed my position. Reading what I've written above should straighten that out. As to evolution's shortcomings, being presented, so should the explanations you mention. That is how we learn. Lay it all out on the table. Explain BOTH sides. Let the students discuss it and make up their own minds. I've said this elsewhere: Don't teach the WHAT. Teach them HOW to think.
Besides, we know that producing a better animal (or insect) is possible and have been doing it for thousands of years. It's called selective breeding. Take a look at dogs for how this process works. The same thing with plants. Grape vines, tomatoes, corn, wheat, all have been subjected to selective breeding which produces better crops.
There is much more to evolution than selective breeding. I don't care how many times you selectively breed a corn plant, it will never produce a soybean, much less a German shepherd. Evolution also includes mutation, natural selection, cross breeding, and several other aspects. But to get from one species to another, you will need a series of slight mutations. We use x-rays and other tools to force mutations in fruit flies. So far, we have not been able to force a beneficial mutation of fruit flies. I realize that is extremely simplified, but it stands that we see far too few beneficial mutations to explain the evolution from algae all the way to the common house cats in a few hundred million years.
Now I'm not necessarily trying to debate this here, bu
We are not limitless beings. We cannot hear every side, we cannot consider every possibility. This is the reason the schools try to only teach well proven ideas. That is part of the reason slashdot has a moderation system. We are not talking about hearing every side. I don't expect teacher's to teach the Aboriginal ideas of creation. We are talking about telling teachers that they can NOT teach anything other than what is in the textbook. Forbidding teachers from doing their jobs (teaching) is what I don't want to see happen. Just as I don't want to forbid teachers from teaching evolution, safe sex, Marxist theory, or any other ideas that may offend some people.
Evolution is a scientific theory, as such it is not perfect. Every theory, even the ones that gain 'scientific law' standing will likely have holes in them. Science is not an end all answer to everything. Its a method to prove and further our current understanding. And debate is what makes scientific theory more perfect. Scientists don't just accept an idea as fact. They challenge ideas and experiment to prove or disprove a hypothesis. If evolution is sound, then there should be no harm in discussion alternative ideas. The research I've done in "creationism" (not ID, but Creationism) has done nothing but strengthen my views of evolution because I truly had to think about it.
ID may or may not be ultimately correct, but that doesn't make it science. Its difficult to prove or disprove, you can wrap it in layers of reasoning but the basic problem is still there, even if a bit obscured. Since it cannot currently be proven or falsified, or even shown to be falsifiable, why should it get any time in science class? Philosophy or religion classes maybe, but not science class. Agreed. Again, I'm not saying that Genesis should be taught as a scientific text, but to remove the debate entirely is censorship and is never a good idea. Debate evolution and let it stand on its own merits. Let the students think about it, maybe do their own research and make up their own minds.
Never teach students WHAT to think. Teach them HOW to think.
From the second link:
Three proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) present their views of design in the natural world. Each view is immediately followed by a response from a proponent of evolution (EVO). The report, printed in its entirety, opens with an introduction by Natural History magazine and concludes with an overview of the ID movement.
The authors who contributed to this Natural History report are:
* Richard Milner and Vittorio Maestro, ed. (introduction)
* Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. (ID) and Kenneth R. Miller, Ph.D. (EVO)
* William A. Dembski, Ph.D. (ID) and Robert T. Pennock, Ph.D. (EVO)
* Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. (ID) and Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D. (EVO)
* Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. (overview) The article you quote "The Newest Evolution of Creationism: Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science." is just one of the articles. The point is to hear both sides of the argument. If yours argument is better, present it, but don't silence the other side. To do so is no different than the Catholic church silencing those that said the earth is round. Debate and discussion is not only a teaching tool, it is a the most critical part of a free society. Forcing the opposition into silence has never worked out well.
This is exactly the kind of wedge the Creationists try to use to get their religious viewpoint into the scientific curriculum and why it was modded down. I'm only going to say this once, very loudly, so you're sure not to miss it.
THERE ARE NOT TWO SIDES TO EVOLUTION. THERE IS NO NEED TO ATTEMPT TO CLAIM THAT SOMEONE'S RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINT NEEDS TO BE PLACED AGAINST SOLID, VERIFIABLE SCIENTIFIC FACTS. RELIGION DOES NOT BELONG IN THE SCHOOLS. THAT IS WHAT CHURCH/TEMPLE/MOSQUE/WHATEVER IS FOR.
Are we clear? Crystal. Can you show me where I said that religion should be taught in public schools? Of course not. Because I didn't. That is a straw man. They put words into the mouths of Christians or anyone who disagrees with them. They also ban any teaching that does not support their thought process.
I'm not saying that science class should use the Bible as a text book, but at least explain where evolution falls short. It is not all encompassing and does not explain everything. There are holes in the theory. Teach those to the kids as well as the facts. Have them write papers as to why the holes don't matter as we don't have enough information or that they prove that evolution is false. Explain why bombarding a million fruit flies has never produced a better fruit fly and also explain how a white moth that did great yesterday gets eaten today because of a forest fire turning all the trees black and the mutated black moth suddenly does better than the white one.
I want my kids to be presented with multiple ideas and make up their own minds. I want my kids to think for themselves, not become robots of the state.
Oh, and as to kids being given the facts and allowed to make their own conclusions, then I'm presuming that teaching kids all about the birds and bees and how not to get pregnant through the use of condoms should be placed up against abstinence only curriculum, right? Absolutely! First, you teach them how to have safe sex, then you teach why they shouldn't. I'm only going to say this once so that there is no confusion.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE SIDES TO ANY ISSUE. TO SILENCE ONE IS CENSORSHIP, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
To say those sites are biased would be an understatement. Listen, there is no way that you can prove scientifically that "God did it" is right or wrong. So, it ain't science. So, there are not two sides to this argument. There is one side. ID is NOT science. First, ID is not necessarily God. Sure, it could be, but saying a superior alien race was visiting Earth and someone sneezed seeding the planet is also ID.
Next, one of the sites I sited states both sides of the argument. Here is a quote:
Wells contends that "Darwin's theory cannot account for all features of living things," but then, it doesn't have to. Today scientists explain features of living things by invoking not only natural selection but also additional biological processes that Darwin didn't know about, including gene transfer, symbiosis, chromosomal rearrangement, and the action of regulator genes. Contrary to what Wells maintains, evolutionary theory is not inadequate. It fits the evidence just fine. So before you go and bash my sources, you should probably read them first. Then again, that is what this whole argument is about. Not only are you against teaching both sides of the argument to school kids, you won't even consider them for yourself. You automatically come out against it without even considering what it has to say. Isn't that what I was talking about to begin with? Isn't that close minded attitude EXACTLY what you are accusing people like me of having?
If you want to teach your kids that "God did it" is an acceptable answer to anything you don't personally understand, then fine, do that in your home or church or wherever... BUT don't pollute my children into believing that crap also. I'd like my kids to have a fair chance in the world economy, where in most 1st and 2nd world nations, they can manage to keep science to true scientific endeavors. If you don't want your kids presented with any other ideas than what you think they should have, then I suggest you home school them. I'm not suggesting that teachers should be teaching the Bible, but to censor them from teaching anything other than what is in the textbook is just that, censorship.
While teachers should be allowed to teach what they please, they should not be allowed to impress their beliefs on others. Teachers need to stick to a standardized curriculum, and if they disagree with evolution, they should simply SAY so when teaching it - teachers could say "This is NOT what I think happened, but there are a lot of people that DO think this way". How about if a teacher said something like:
I don't necessarily agree with evolution and here is why. First, while it works great on a micro scale, white moths do better after an event that turns trees white, for example, evolution tends to fall apart on the macro scale. For example, what made the first organisms lose their ability to produce energy from sunlight or heat? At what evolutionary point did it become non-advantageous to create your own energy and start to feed on the energy of others? How did that particular organism make that leap from energy producer to consumer? A digestive system doesn't just appear all at once. It has several necessary components that are required or the whole thing falls apart. Now kids, can you explain to me how such an organism could have been formed? Or, can you give me other examples as to how evolution can not be the sole factor in the origins of species? I expect your papers at the beginning of class tomorrow. Wikipedia and Slashdot will not be considered as valid sources.
To prove my point that some people around here want to silence those ideas which they don't agree with, this comment was modded down... twice. To mod down a comment just because you don't agree with it is against the moderation guidelines. Why not post a reply and explain what you disagree with?
What's the big deal? Stupid teachers still wouldn't be allowed to teach "Intelligent Design" anyway, since -- according to the summary -- the information still has to be scientific (and "ID" fails at that). Actually, there is good science [ideacenter.org] to support ID [actionbioscience.org] also.
Either way, forbidding teachers to teach something is no different than the Catholic church of old forbidding teachings that said the world was round. To say one side is "not scientifically based" just because it is different than your view is just as bigoted and close minded as the Catholic church calling Newton a "heretic". You can't block information just because you don't agree with it.
Evolution needs to be taught with both sides presented so that the students can discuss and make up their own minds. Kids tend to learn better when given the facts and allowed to draw their own conclusions.
What's the big deal? Stupid teachers still wouldn't be allowed to teach "Intelligent Design" anyway, since -- according to the summary -- the information still has to be scientific (and "ID" fails at that). Actually, there is good science to support ID also.
Either way, forbidding teachers to teach something is no different than the Catholic church of old forbidding teachings that said the world was round. To say one side is "not scientifically based" just because it is different than your view is just as bigoted and close minded as the Catholic church calling Newton a "heretic". You can't block information just because you don't agree with it.
Evolution needs to be taught with both sides presented so that the students can discuss and make up their own minds. Kids tend to learn better when given the facts and allowed to draw their own conclusions.
Cause dammit, I want crisp, clear flames when I'm watching a 15 year old set himself on fire! Exactly what I was thinking... well, except my thoughts dealt with 2 girls, a cup of something and corn... but the idea was the same.
nd the answer is because Fox Broadcasting is run by clinical retards (no offense to anyone who is or is related to an actual retarded person, as you or they are probably vastly overqualified to run Fox). Now-Now. They are not completely worthless. Why just look at Torgo's Executive Powder. Now there is a good use!
South Park and Simpsons wipe their asses with the Family Guy scripts. Was that too strong? Seriously, FG is not that clever or funny, unless you're a complete idiot, then you might actually enjoy it greatly. Sorry about you being an idiot though. No offense was meant. Maybe read some more. It helps. It was a LOT better before the manatees went on strike. No one can get too much of Mohamed Salmon Helmets!
Why Cleveland? Why not Quagmire (Cleveland's wife agrees) or any of the other more interesting characters? When I hear Cleveland, I just want to go to sleep until I hear a "Diggity".
The challenge is that he's a disabled juvenile, for which there are likely very few facilities available for the internment thereof.
Couldn't they just place him under home arrest by simply taking his dog? If they really wanted to punish him, they could rearrange his furniture once a week. To keep him off his computer, just glue bird seed to his keyboard and take his speakers away... or just burn his fingers.
Does anyone think that the middle east doesn't have something equivalent. Multiply that with the fact that the hottest chick you see is dressed like a ninja, the most female skin you ever see is the occasional ankle shot and you and her might get killed for talking with her if she's not related.
You seem to know much more about the difficulties transporting hydrogen than I do. Do you have any links so I can catch up? Also, where do I sign up for your newsletter?:-)
There are many reasons BOTH competing H2 technologies can't work. Most of it boils down to safety (driving H2 bombs around town)... As opposed to driving gasoline or alcohol bombs around town...
logistics (how do you ship highly compressed H2 since it can't be pipelined), They ship water to the gas stations via existing pipes and convert it to hydrogen on site expelling oxygen as a byproduct
fuel cells might have good reliability, but if you crack it in a wreck, it's half the cost of the vehicle to replace, Price should come down as production increases.
the only safe ways to store H2 gas (metal infusion) weigh too much, take 8 hours to refuel, and have less than 200 mile range. Why not just store it in the same tank I store propane gas in? Sure it will slowly leak, but how long will it take to leak out enough to be a problem? Besides, slowly leaking tanks is a good thing for producers.
However, I do see the danger that parking a car in an enclosed space for any length of time can slowly turn your garage into a bomb.
There is a very limited amount of fossil fuels remaining. Continuing to use it at an ever increasing pace until it runs out will cause economies that are energy dependent to fail catastrophically. By funding alternative sources of energy while tapering off our use of fossil fuels, we will ensure that economies that depend on energy will continue to flourish. No, I think we should drill for oil and other fossil fuels all we can. We tax the profits on that energy (about $70 per barrel for oil) and spend the money on researching alternative sources. That way, by the time ANWR runs out of oil, we won't need it anymore.
Your claim that global warming is good for agriculture seems to be based on one study. If the study based its claim on the usual 95% statistical certainty, it has a 5% chance of being incorrect. If twenty similar studies were performed, we would expect one to be incorrect, and of course the media will sensationalize the one dissenting finding. Scientific conclusions are based on repeatable studies and reaching a consensus, not lone papers that seem to disprove what the vast majority of scientists are saying. The climate is either going to warm or cool, always. That's what climate change is and climate change is always happening. Global warming is much better for agriculture that global cooling. A longer, wetter growing season is better than a shorter, drier one. That's just common sense. I don't care about data cherry picked by politically motivated organizations when it says something as stupid as drier and cooler is better for farming.
I should have said more snowfall in North America combined with the steadily rising temperatures and shrinking ice caps. Really? Recent evidence shows that the ice caps are growing, not shrinking. Google "increasing arctic ice 2008" (no quotes) for sources.
So that would be more snowfall in N. America, S. America, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, and Chile combined with growing ice caps means global warming? So if it were hotter in all these areas, would that mean global cooling? I'm confused by your logic.
How exactly does cutting back on carbon emissions "wreck worldwide economies"? I don't believe I have to explain this, but here we go...
Economies are based on making stuff and doing things. Making stuff and doing things require energy. Most of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels emit CO2. By forcing a decrease in CO2 emissions, you are forcing a decrease in fossil fuel burning, which means a decrease in energy and therefor, a decrease in production, which economies are based on. The laws of supply and demand dictate higher prices for everything, in addition to the increase in price of energy itself, which is the only real way to curtail its usage. Higher prices, making less stuff = wrecked economies.
On the other hand, if global warming produces droughts, that could certainly wreck economies that depend on agriculture. On another hand... or foot or whatever, global cooling means even more agricultural problems. Since we know that the climate is always changing, meaning that it is either warming or cooling all the time, we are much better off with the warming. Besides, global warming is actually good for agriculture.
"The overall results suggest that global warming is not as dangerous [to agriculture] as was first believed. The impacts for the globe average near zero suggesting that the world should delay implementing expensive abatement programs," argued Dr Mendelsohn. Of course, there is two sides. Allow me to pick one of them apart. My comments in bold
Scientists agree that human activity by emitting heat-trapping gases is causing global warming(not true. Sure some scientist think so, it's not a consensus by any means) with extremely serious environmental and human health effects(not proven.). Following is a statement on the impacts from the Union of Concerned Scientists:(a political group with funding from National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense, and the Tides Foundation and others) Causing serious disruptions to our environment and lives . ..(Opinion, not fact and not based on facts)
As the Earth continues to warm, there is a growing risk that the climate will change in ways that will seriously disrupt our lives.(and there is a RISK that it won't) While on average the globe will get warmer and receive more precipitation, individual regions will experience different climatic changes and environmental impacts.(Uh, isn't a warmer climate with more rainfall GOOD for agriculture? I mean, I'm no farmer and all, but some guy here just told me that global warming will mean more droughts... which one is it?)
The point is to either comprehend the science behind it and be able to argue the subject on a scientific level, or leave it to the hundreds of scientists and governmental advisors (mostly outside the USA) to do it for you and trust what they say. This stuff is complex and I dislike the fact that some misguided people are telling some of the smartest scientists on the damn planet, that what they think is stupid.
If you'd be familiar with the issue, you'd know that scientists are not denying naturally occuring changes and are in fact they were the ones who observed those cycles in the first place, but they're saying that what we have now is happening much faster and is a bigger change than what we had before. A few degrees change you say? Put those few degrees into perspective! The global yearly average temperature is 14C. A few degrees colder and life wouldn't have developed on the planet. A few degrees hotter and life is forced to adapt to wildly different conditions, rapidly. A fraction of a degree has a huge effect! I agree with most of what you say. As to the section I bolded above, I REALLY agree. However, I probably see it a bit differently than you do. While many scientist think that recent warming trends were due to man-made factors increase in CO2 due to fossil fuels, for example, many other scientists point to things like increased solar activity as the culprit. Both sides make valid arguments. What I see happening is an attempt by "global warming alarmists" to discredit the scientists who disagree with them. I've heard that they were all working for big oil companies and even read stories of many talented climatologists losing their jobs over it.
As for the changes happening faster than normal, I disagree. There have been natural occurrences throughout the climatological history of our planet where the temperature changes much more rapidly than they are now. The Permian-Triassic extinction event is a fine example. So while a fraction of a degree may have had a huge effect toward the beginnings of life, I don't think that it will have as much of an effect with evolving, adapting creatures. For that matter, a rapidly changing climate throughout history is what made the creatures of today as resilient as they are in regards to temperature change.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm, WRONG.
the textbook is approved for teaching specific subjects. Straying off to wherever the teacher feels like going is not education. There is a neat thing called a curriculum. I plan on teaching my kids my own version of the world also, but I am not going to force the world to tolerate my version of events. You are proposing teaching non-science in science classes. I would much rather have to add in my views on top of the generally accepted instead of having to explain away items that should not have been presented in the first place. The act of being taught non-science in science class wastes time. Students in a science class should be taught the scientific method. Part of the scientific method is to challenge what is already thought to be known. All this bill does is allows teacher to challenge evolutionary theory. THAT is what the scientific method is all about. So, by saying that teachers should not be allowed to challenge evolution, you are proposing teaching non-science in science classes. Science starts with asking questions. Step 1 of the Scientific Method is Define the question. If you are not allowed to question evolution, you are stopping before you even start!
Maybe you're thinking about spelling or history or something where you blindly memorize facts. That is not what you learn in science class.
The teacher could ask "is evolution fact?" and then say "prove it". It's not really the answer you come up with in this case, but if you applied the scientific method to get there. If you can teach the students to think, they will come up with the correct conclusion on their own.
I'm not saying we should be teaching ID, or religion in any shape or form. This bill simply allows teachers to question the validity of evolution and challenge the students to think about it rather than memorize data. Isn't that a good thing?
Of course you didn't say religion should be taught. That's exactly the same bogus argument the folks in Dover, PA tried to use when they wanted to teach Intelligent Design in a science classroom. They never explicitly said they wanted to teach a religious viewpoint, they just said that everything could be explained by some unknown, untestable, supposedly omnipotent being who has existed since before there was a time. It's a neat dodge to try and avoid sounding like they wanted to teach their religious viewpoint, and ONLY their religious viewpoint, when it came to Evolution. So no, it's not a strawman argument. It's letting people know where you're coming from.
No, you are letting people know where the good folks in Dover are coming from. Not me. But since you have incorrectly guessed my views, I guess I should tell them to you. I believe in evolution. I have studied Creationism and weighed its points against those of evolution. I have decided that while Creationists make some valid points, they are trying to explain things after the fact. Their views constantly morph depending on the latest scientific discover that disproves their last point. They never stop to think that evolution is a much miraculous thing than God simply saying "let it be". I see evolution as a tool of God, not disproof of God. However, had I not been presented with conflicting ideas, I would have never come to that conclusion. I would have either ended up where you are or where the upstanding patriots of Dover are. I have made up my own mind and believe that you are both right, to some degree, and neither of you should have the right to silence the other.
Every time someone says this, the reasons they believe Evolution falls short have been answered. Repeatedly. In detail. The problem is that people like you don't want to hear the reasons why their issues with Evolution's supposed shortcomings are not relevant to the discussion because they've already been answered. Yet, these same people, even after being given a clear, concise reason as to why their issues are not relevant will still insist at the next forum to raise the exact same issues. That is why there is no need to go into the suppposed shortcomings. Only people who don't believe Evolution is real believe it has shortcomings.
You accuse people of not wanting to hear opposing views (I've bolded it), yet, YOU don't want to hear opposing views. You are what you are accusing others of being.
Again, you've assumed my position. Reading what I've written above should straighten that out. As to evolution's shortcomings, being presented, so should the explanations you mention. That is how we learn. Lay it all out on the table. Explain BOTH sides. Let the students discuss it and make up their own minds. I've said this elsewhere: Don't teach the WHAT. Teach them HOW to think.
Besides, we know that producing a better animal (or insect) is possible and have been doing it for thousands of years. It's called selective breeding. Take a look at dogs for how this process works. The same thing with plants. Grape vines, tomatoes, corn, wheat, all have been subjected to selective breeding which produces better crops.
There is much more to evolution than selective breeding. I don't care how many times you selectively breed a corn plant, it will never produce a soybean, much less a German shepherd. Evolution also includes mutation, natural selection, cross breeding, and several other aspects. But to get from one species to another, you will need a series of slight mutations. We use x-rays and other tools to force mutations in fruit flies. So far, we have not been able to force a beneficial mutation of fruit flies. I realize that is extremely simplified, but it stands that we see far too few beneficial mutations to explain the evolution from algae all the way to the common house cats in a few hundred million years.
Now I'm not necessarily trying to debate this here, bu
Never teach students WHAT to think. Teach them HOW to think.
The authors who contributed to this Natural History report are:
* Richard Milner and Vittorio Maestro, ed. (introduction)
* Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. (ID) and Kenneth R. Miller, Ph.D. (EVO)
* William A. Dembski, Ph.D. (ID) and Robert T. Pennock, Ph.D. (EVO)
* Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. (ID) and Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D. (EVO)
* Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. (overview) The article you quote "The Newest Evolution of Creationism: Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science." is just one of the articles. The point is to hear both sides of the argument. If yours argument is better, present it, but don't silence the other side. To do so is no different than the Catholic church silencing those that said the earth is round. Debate and discussion is not only a teaching tool, it is a the most critical part of a free society. Forcing the opposition into silence has never worked out well.
THERE ARE NOT TWO SIDES TO EVOLUTION. THERE IS NO NEED TO ATTEMPT TO CLAIM THAT SOMEONE'S RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINT NEEDS TO BE PLACED AGAINST SOLID, VERIFIABLE SCIENTIFIC FACTS. RELIGION DOES NOT BELONG IN THE SCHOOLS. THAT IS WHAT CHURCH/TEMPLE/MOSQUE/WHATEVER IS FOR.
Are we clear? Crystal. Can you show me where I said that religion should be taught in public schools? Of course not. Because I didn't. That is a straw man. They put words into the mouths of Christians or anyone who disagrees with them. They also ban any teaching that does not support their thought process.
I'm not saying that science class should use the Bible as a text book, but at least explain where evolution falls short. It is not all encompassing and does not explain everything. There are holes in the theory. Teach those to the kids as well as the facts. Have them write papers as to why the holes don't matter as we don't have enough information or that they prove that evolution is false. Explain why bombarding a million fruit flies has never produced a better fruit fly and also explain how a white moth that did great yesterday gets eaten today because of a forest fire turning all the trees black and the mutated black moth suddenly does better than the white one.
I want my kids to be presented with multiple ideas and make up their own minds. I want my kids to think for themselves, not become robots of the state. Oh, and as to kids being given the facts and allowed to make their own conclusions, then I'm presuming that teaching kids all about the birds and bees and how not to get pregnant through the use of condoms should be placed up against abstinence only curriculum, right? Absolutely! First, you teach them how to have safe sex, then you teach why they shouldn't. I'm only going to say this once so that there is no confusion.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE SIDES TO ANY ISSUE. TO SILENCE ONE IS CENSORSHIP, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Are we clear here?
Next, one of the sites I sited states both sides of the argument. Here is a quote: Wells contends that "Darwin's theory cannot account for all features of living things," but then, it doesn't have to. Today scientists explain features of living things by invoking not only natural selection but also additional biological processes that Darwin didn't know about, including gene transfer, symbiosis, chromosomal rearrangement, and the action of regulator genes. Contrary to what Wells maintains, evolutionary theory is not inadequate. It fits the evidence just fine. So before you go and bash my sources, you should probably read them first. Then again, that is what this whole argument is about. Not only are you against teaching both sides of the argument to school kids, you won't even consider them for yourself. You automatically come out against it without even considering what it has to say. Isn't that what I was talking about to begin with? Isn't that close minded attitude EXACTLY what you are accusing people like me of having? If you want to teach your kids that "God did it" is an acceptable answer to anything you don't personally understand, then fine, do that in your home or church or wherever... BUT don't pollute my children into believing that crap also. I'd like my kids to have a fair chance in the world economy, where in most 1st and 2nd world nations, they can manage to keep science to true scientific endeavors. If you don't want your kids presented with any other ideas than what you think they should have, then I suggest you home school them. I'm not suggesting that teachers should be teaching the Bible, but to censor them from teaching anything other than what is in the textbook is just that, censorship.
Teachers need to stick to a standardized curriculum, and if they disagree with evolution, they should simply SAY so when teaching it - teachers could say "This is NOT what I think happened, but there are a lot of people that DO think this way". How about if a teacher said something like: I don't necessarily agree with evolution and here is why. First, while it works great on a micro scale, white moths do better after an event that turns trees white, for example, evolution tends to fall apart on the macro scale. For example, what made the first organisms lose their ability to produce energy from sunlight or heat? At what evolutionary point did it become non-advantageous to create your own energy and start to feed on the energy of others? How did that particular organism make that leap from energy producer to consumer? A digestive system doesn't just appear all at once. It has several necessary components that are required or the whole thing falls apart. Now kids, can you explain to me how such an organism could have been formed? Or, can you give me other examples as to how evolution can not be the sole factor in the origins of species? I expect your papers at the beginning of class tomorrow. Wikipedia and Slashdot will not be considered as valid sources.
Either way, forbidding teachers to teach something is no different than the Catholic church of old forbidding teachings that said the world was round. To say one side is "not scientifically based" just because it is different than your view is just as bigoted and close minded as the Catholic church calling Newton a "heretic". You can't block information just because you don't agree with it.
Evolution needs to be taught with both sides presented so that the students can discuss and make up their own minds. Kids tend to learn better when given the facts and allowed to draw their own conclusions.
Either way, forbidding teachers to teach something is no different than the Catholic church of old forbidding teachings that said the world was round. To say one side is "not scientifically based" just because it is different than your view is just as bigoted and close minded as the Catholic church calling Newton a "heretic". You can't block information just because you don't agree with it.
Evolution needs to be taught with both sides presented so that the students can discuss and make up their own minds. Kids tend to learn better when given the facts and allowed to draw their own conclusions.
"Well, this isn't Fox, for one thing..." Al: Work the shaft, Sam, work the shaft!
Why Cleveland? Why not Quagmire (Cleveland's wife agrees) or any of the other more interesting characters? When I hear Cleveland, I just want to go to sleep until I hear a "Diggity".
The challenge is that he's a disabled juvenile, for which there are likely very few facilities available for the internment thereof.
Couldn't they just place him under home arrest by simply taking his dog? If they really wanted to punish him, they could rearrange his furniture once a week. To keep him off his computer, just glue bird seed to his keyboard and take his speakers away... or just burn his fingers.
Reminds of the old quote I used to read around the web. The requirements called for Windows2000 or better, so I upgraded to Linux.
Teenage angst? Mid-life crisis? Clinical Depression?
Does anyone think that the middle east doesn't have something equivalent. Multiply that with the fact that the hottest chick you see is dressed like a ninja, the most female skin you ever see is the occasional ankle shot and you and her might get killed for talking with her if she's not related.
I answered my own question.
Still, I believe that in time, these challenges can be over come.
You seem to know much more about the difficulties transporting hydrogen than I do. Do you have any links so I can catch up? Also, where do I sign up for your newsletter? :-)
However, I do see the danger that parking a car in an enclosed space for any length of time can slowly turn your garage into a bomb.
So that would be more snowfall in N. America, S. America, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, and Chile combined with growing ice caps means global warming? So if it were hotter in all these areas, would that mean global cooling? I'm confused by your logic.
Economies are based on making stuff and doing things. Making stuff and doing things require energy. Most of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels emit CO2. By forcing a decrease in CO2 emissions, you are forcing a decrease in fossil fuel burning, which means a decrease in energy and therefor, a decrease in production, which economies are based on. The laws of supply and demand dictate higher prices for everything, in addition to the increase in price of energy itself, which is the only real way to curtail its usage. Higher prices, making less stuff = wrecked economies. On the other hand, if global warming produces droughts, that could certainly wreck economies that depend on agriculture. On another hand... or foot or whatever, global cooling means even more agricultural problems. Since we know that the climate is always changing, meaning that it is either warming or cooling all the time, we are much better off with the warming. Besides, global warming is actually good for agriculture. "The overall results suggest that global warming is not as dangerous [to agriculture] as was first believed. The impacts for the globe average near zero suggesting that the world should delay implementing expensive abatement programs," argued Dr Mendelsohn. Of course, there is two sides. Allow me to pick one of them apart. My comments in bold Scientists agree that human activity by emitting heat-trapping gases is causing global warming(not true. Sure some scientist think so, it's not a consensus by any means) with extremely serious environmental and human health effects(not proven.). Following is a statement on the impacts from the Union of Concerned Scientists:(a political group with funding from National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense, and the Tides Foundation and others)
Causing serious disruptions to our environment and lives . .
As the Earth continues to warm, there is a growing risk that the climate will change in ways that will seriously disrupt our lives.(and there is a RISK that it won't) While on average the globe will get warmer and receive more precipitation, individual regions will experience different climatic changes and environmental impacts.(Uh, isn't a warmer climate with more rainfall GOOD for agriculture? I mean, I'm no farmer and all, but some guy here just told me that global warming will mean more droughts... which one is it?)
If you'd be familiar with the issue, you'd know that scientists are not denying naturally occuring changes and are in fact they were the ones who observed those cycles in the first place, but they're saying that what we have now is happening much faster and is a bigger change than what we had before. A few degrees change you say? Put those few degrees into perspective! The global yearly average temperature is 14C. A few degrees colder and life wouldn't have developed on the planet. A few degrees hotter and life is forced to adapt to wildly different conditions, rapidly. A fraction of a degree has a huge effect! I agree with most of what you say. As to the section I bolded above, I REALLY agree. However, I probably see it a bit differently than you do. While many scientist think that recent warming trends were due to man-made factors increase in CO2 due to fossil fuels, for example, many other scientists point to things like increased solar activity as the culprit. Both sides make valid arguments. What I see happening is an attempt by "global warming alarmists" to discredit the scientists who disagree with them. I've heard that they were all working for big oil companies and even read stories of many talented climatologists losing their jobs over it.
As for the changes happening faster than normal, I disagree. There have been natural occurrences throughout the climatological history of our planet where the temperature changes much more rapidly than they are now. The Permian-Triassic extinction event is a fine example. So while a fraction of a degree may have had a huge effect toward the beginnings of life, I don't think that it will have as much of an effect with evolving, adapting creatures. For that matter, a rapidly changing climate throughout history is what made the creatures of today as resilient as they are in regards to temperature change.