Teach the controversy

Heh:

Speaking of the controversy:

I had to look - Sam got me curious:

What FOXNews says about Stein's new movie.

According to the film’s Web site, the producers are in a whopping 45 theaters in North Carolina, and a mere seven in Massachusetts, 35 in Georgia, 11 in New Jersey, four in Connecticut and one in Vermont. And so on. There are huge numbers of screens in Florida and Texas taking the film, particularly seven in San Antonio. If I lived in the Deep South, I’d boycott the filmmakers for thinking of me as this gullible and unsophisticated.

Hmmmm...

Ah, Florida.
Bringing on the crazy since 1845.

They want "academic freedom" in the schools until it is time to cover sexuality in heath class...

Is that a class on dead actors?

SheikBen wrote:Is that a class on dead actors?

Great one Michael.

.

That was pretty funny.

Anyone want to comment on the topics?

As far as ID or creationism is concerned, their "arguments" can be summed up with the following few points:

# Claim that mainstream science isn't actually science in the first place, e.g. it is "religion", "unscientific", "unfalsifiable", "politics", etc.

# Claim that there is an establishment/conspiracy (liberal, leftist, intellectual, political, elitist, etc.) pushing its agenda, censoring and/or persecuting those that "dare to dissent"; sometimes conflating science with brutal totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, or religious persecutions like the Inquisition or witch hunts.

# Claim that a vocal minority making claims outside of the primary scientific literature justifies the assertion that a controversy exists; use of unpublished polls/petitions/surveys of scientists or "experts" on topics outside of their field of expertise to give or further impression of same.

# Deliberately equivocate on the meaning of scientific vs. lay terminology (e.g. "theory", "hypothesis", etc.) to persuade lay persons that mainstream science hasn't "been proven".

# Present claims made outside the primary literature as equal to or more credible than studies in refereed journals- even claims made by politicians, or think tanks with clear ideological agendas.

# Present self-contradictory alternatives to/criticisms of the mainstream view without apparent realization or acknowledgment of their mutually exclusive nature.

# Present admissions to or criticisms of problematic aspects relating to the mainstream view that have since been resolved for years, decades, etc. as though they are still relevant; conflate mainstream science to past instances of scientific or pseudoscientific failure without evidence of how the same is occurring.

# Attack opinions and/or statements made outside the primary literature, even claims made by politicians, or organizations with clear ideological agendas as if this is equal to or more credible than publishing criticisms in refereed, respected journals.

# Attack areas of remaining study or uncertainty that may or may not even fall under the scope of the basic premise to give the appearance of discrediting the main tenets.

# Assume any gap or error as positive evidence for the opposing position with no illustration of it being such.

TerryRC wrote:

Is there room on "the table" for #122, ........ ununbibium.

An international team of researchers may, just may, have made a radical breakthrough that could rewrite physics and chemistry textbooks.

They claim to have discovered a naturally occurring element with an atomic number (number of protons) of 122 — 30 notches on the periodic table ahead of uranium, long considered the heaviest naturally occurring element.

For decades, physicists have been making artificial elements in supercolliders, only to see most of their creations disintegrate within a short time.

Most elements above atomic number 100 are inherently unstable and get progressively more usntable as you travel upward. The highest discovered one, ununoctium or atomic number 118, has a half-life of 89 milliseconds.

But according to theory, there exists an "island of stability" further out along the periodic table where certain configurations of protons and neutrons would create superheavy but also superstable elements.

So a team led by Amnon Marinov of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem took a different approach. They figured that if superheavy, superstable elements really are possible, then they ought to already exist in nature.

Taking a relatively large amount of thorium, a natural element with the atomic number 90, they fired each and every nucleus in the pile through a mass spectrometer, which catches the atomic weight of nuclei (protons plus neutrons) by analyzing how beams of ions pass through them.

The two isotopes of thorium, with atomic weights of 230 and 232, were most abundant, as were various impurities in the sample.

But there was something else — something with an atomic weight of 292, something never before seen.

The researchers aren't certain, but they figure their unknown substance probably has an atomic number of 122, whose slot on the periodic table already has the temporary name "ununbibium," or "one-two-two-bium."

They also figure its half-life is at least 100 million years — meaning the shores of the long-sought "island of stability" may finally have been reached.

They're ruled out various errors, and are ready to defend their paper, posted Thursday on the math and physics Web site arXiv.org.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352980,00.html

TerryRC wrote:That was pretty funny.

Anyone want to comment on the topics?

I have relatively little interest in the matter these days. For one, it is a technical conversation in which my education is somewhat limited.

For another, while I don't believe in unguided macroevolution, I do not see any threat in it. I just don't buy it. Why is it so important that you sell it to me? Given the state of American public education, do you really believe that students "being wrong" for you on evolution is the biggest problem? Have you seen our children's comparative math scores?

I might suggest that going after Ben Stein's movie is a convenient way for science "educators" to take the focus off of their own failures regarding their own students.

I might suggest that going after Ben Stein's movie is a convenient way for science "educators" to take the focus off of their own failures regarding their own students.

Well, when the biology teacher's efforts are countered at home by parents that don't want their kids listening to that tripe, their job gets more difficult.

Since you bring up the topic of "focus", however...

That is what creationists and IDer's do. They attack evolution and/or the scientific community. By doing so, it keeps them from ever having to offer evidence to support their "theories".

The whole movie is about going after the scientific community and the "conspiracy", taking the focus off of the shortcomings of the ID movement.

For another, while I don't believe in unguided macroevolution, I do not see any threat in it. I just don't buy it. Why is it so important that you sell it to me? Given the state of American public education, do you really believe that students "being wrong" for you on evolution is the biggest problem? Have you seen our children's comparative math scores?

Being a biologist, I'd say there are damn few things in this world that aren't related to biology, in one way or another. That makes the attacks on biology and science in general very important to me.

We used to be the scientific and technical leaders of the world. No more. I blame some of that on religion and the people that teach their kids that science is evil because it conflicts with the bible.

I don't care if you "buy" evolution. Just don't stifle the teaching of it. It is one of the (if not the) fundamentals of all of the biological sciences, including medicine.

SheikBen wrote:I might suggest that going after Ben Stein's movie is a convenient way for science "educators" to take the focus off of their own failures regarding their own students.

Mike, I never thought about it in that light, .......... but damned if you are not right.

touché

.

TerryRC wrote:
We used to be the scientific and technical leaders of the world. No more. I blame some of that on religion and the people that teach their kids that science is evil because it conflicts with the bible.

HORSEPUCKY ......................

Proportionally to the population, there is considerably LESS people that teach their kids that science is evil because it conflicts with the Bible ......... THAN THERE WAS BACK WHEN ..... "We used to be the scientific and technical leaders of the world."

We used to be the scientific and technical leaders of the world ........ because the Educators use to have control of their Classrooms, ........ demanded that their students learn the material ......... and attempted to teach all of them how to "think for themselves".

TRC, you are not a "product" of those times ....... therefore you do not understand their significance.

.

TerryRC wrote:We used to be the scientific and technical leaders of the world. No more. I blame some of that on religion and the people that teach their kids that science is evil because it conflicts with the bible.

I don't care if you "buy" evolution. Just don't stifle the teaching of it. It is one of the (if not the) fundamentals of all of the biological sciences, including medicine.

Please. In a world that lets techers show Al Gore's Inconvient Lie, you really expect us to believe that religion is hindering the teaching of evolution.

Please.

Aaron wrote:
Please. In a world that lets techers show Al Gore's Inconvient Lie, you really expect us to believe that religion is hindering the teaching of evolution.

Please.

DAMN ......

I should have thought of that.

.

SamCogar wrote:

TerryRC wrote:
We used to be the scientific and technical leaders of the world. No more. I blame some of that on religion and the people that teach their kids that science is evil because it conflicts with the bible.

HORSEPUCKY ......................

Proportionally to the population, there is considerably LESS people that teach their kids that science is evil because it conflicts with the Bible ......... THAN THERE WAS BACK WHEN ..... "We used to be the scientific and technical leaders of the world."

We used to be the scientific and technical leaders of the world ........ because the Educators use to have control of their Classrooms, ........ demanded that their students learn the material ......... and attempted to teach all of them how to "think for themselves".

TRC, you are not a "product" of those times ....... therefore you do not understand their significance.

.

Here, here, Sam. Great point.

Please. In a world that lets techers show Al Gore's Inconvient Lie, you really expect us to believe that religion is hindering the teaching of evolution.

If you think some teachers won't be showing this movie, you are deranged.

Regardless, I criticized Gore's movie, also.

My wife went to a school where the biology teacher refused to teach evolution. She didn't learn it until college.

Yes, I do believe religion is hindering the teaching of evolution.

We used to be the scientific and technical leaders of the world ........ because the Educators use to have control of their Classrooms, ........ demanded that their students learn the material ......... and attempted to teach all of them how to "think for themselves".

TRC, you are not a "product" of those times ....... therefore you do not understand their significance.

Right, Sam. Insult my education again. Your generation was the last to be any good.

Sheik is a product of my generation. I don't see you saying the same to him. Of course he agrees with you more often...

The fundamentalist movement didn't really pick up steam until the late 60's and seventies. It was in full swing by the Reagen years.

About the same time that you imply that educators went south. Perhaps we are both correct.

TerryRC,

The fundamentalist movement didn't pick up steam until the 1960's?

So the Scopes Trial was not a fundamentalist issue, and even if it were, they had no influence? What was that 1925, or was that 1965? You'll have to help me with my dating; after all, my high school teacher taught me evolution but my fundamentalist mind prevented me from learning anything:)!

TerryRC wrote:We used to be the scientific and technical leaders of the world ........ because the Educators use to have control of their Classrooms, ........ demanded that their students learn the material ......... and attempted to teach all of them how to "think for themselves".

TRC, you are not a "product" of those times ....... therefore you do not understand their significance.

Right, Sam. Insult my education again. Your generation was the last to be any good.

TRC, I was not so much insulting "your education", .......... as I was insulting "your lack of education".

Technically, it is not your fault that you were educated as such, ....... but it is your fault if you remain so educated.

The fundamentalist movement didn't pick up steam until the 1960's?

So the Scopes Trial was not a fundamentalist issue, and even if it were, they had no influence? What was that 1925, or was that 1965? You'll have to help me with my dating; after all, my high school teacher taught me evolution but my fundamentalist mind prevented me from learning anything:)!

Perhaps I would have been more correct to say the evangelical movement. You know, when the Southern Baptist Conventions became a political force.

My wife went to school in Fairmont, WV and her high school biology teacher would not teach evolution. Fact, not speculation.

I stand by what I say. I have seen too many of the devout become anti-science, not by thinking of it on their own, but by parroting their pastors and preacher.

Aaron wrote:

TerryRC wrote:We used to be the scientific and technical leaders of the world. No more. I blame some of that on religion and the people that teach their kids that science is evil because it conflicts with the bible.

I don't care if you "buy" evolution. Just don't stifle the teaching of it. It is one of the (if not the) fundamentals of all of the biological sciences, including medicine.

Please. In a world that lets techers show Al Gore's Inconvient Lie, you really expect us to believe that religion is hindering the teaching of evolution.

Please.

If you stand by what you say, you're still wrong!!!

If you stand by what you say, you're still wrong!!!

Sez you.

Is it your contention, still, that people don't try and legislate their religious morality?

I have given you evidence to the contrary. Where is your evidence that I am wrong?

Did you not see the opinion of one bonehead that atheists=terrorists?

Stick your head back in the sand, Aaron. Nothing to see here.

TerryRC wrote:If you stand by what you say, you're still wrong!!!

Sez you.

Is it your contention, still, that people don't try and legislate their religious morality?

I have given you evidence to the contrary. Where is your evidence that I am wrong?

Did you not see the opinion of one bonehead that atheists=terrorists?

Stick your head back in the sand, Aaron. Nothing to see here.

You have proven nothing. You posted a cartoon and gave one example of one bonehead. I hate to be the one to tell you lib but there's boneheads on both sides of the God issue. Yes, there are those that may very well attempt to legislate their morality but that person is in the minority. For you to lump all Christians into the same catagory as one and use that as the reason Athiest are the only ones qualified to legislate is tripe. Your heads buried Lib but it ain't in the sand. You've had it in there so long, seems you've gotten used to the smell.

Putting "God" on our money and in our pledge.

Pushing to narrowly define marriage in judeo-christian terms. Every blue law on the books.

Nope, people never seek to legislate their beliefs.

I never said that christians shouldn't make legislation and only atheists should. I said that people shouldn't try to legislate their religious beliefs.

Your argument is strawman.

There are none so blind as those that refuse to see...