 AtlLiberal says: Anyone who buys the crap these Texas Education Agency members put out get exactly what they deserve. Their repeated denial that they are not anxious to sneak their creationist dogma into Texas biology classes is so patently absurd to be laughable. In fact, one is tempted to propose that their purpose is to guarantee that Texas school children turn out to be as abjectly stupid as they are themselves. No child left behind. It is one thing to teach evolution. It is another to teach Darwinism. The agenda of text books and teachers is Darwinism, which is beyond the scope of evolution. We have seen, time after time, the use of false and forged ideas used as "evidence". Time after time they have been removed from text books. Some, like the miller experiment, the tree of life, Haekels embryo drawings, and various missing link "proofs" are still used in textbooks even though they have been proven false. Evolution is a scientific theory that holds to scrutiny. Darwinism is a materialist propaganda campaign that falls apart under scrutiny. Knowing the difference is education. Falling prey to ideology and hate is another. What you're saying has no relationship to the clip offered. And the fact that science makes wrong turns and is self correcting is a plus rather than a minus. Your perogative use of the term Darwinism is usually associated creationists though you wish to turn this into a political discussion instead of one about education. Clarify your position and how it relates to this clip and perhaps we can forward. You also mention an agenda. Care to expand on that? A clear definition of what you consider "Darwinism" as it relates to teaching biology would help also. My comment has everything to do with the clip. If there is something that has no relationship it is the clip title and the clip. So, you deny that the Texas Education Agency story has anything to do with creationism? Care to explain this unique position. And a definition of "Darwinism" and how it relates to the Texas controversy would also be appreciated. The context of creationism is one you subjectively applied along with "liars". Regarding a definition of Darwinism, I provided my point on this distinction above. I will leave it to you to educate yourself when you find the desire. Regarding a definition of Darwinism, I provided my point on this distinction above. Translation: I will try to dazzle you with big sounding words that I know nothing about and consistently misuse because they sound scary. I can not explain what they are because I have no idea what they mean. Did I mention that they sound really scaaaaary! Thought I mention that. I'm sorry, AltLib, I re-read my comment and it certainly is not clear on how Darwinism compares to Evolution. I apologize. Basically. Evolution is the process of adaptation to the environment through natural selection. Darwinism posits that all life descended from a common ancestor. See? Ratilfar learned something new and it sickens him so he is going to tell me how wrong I am about something he just now learned. He's an expert on Materialism and cultural marxism you know. Darwinism does not exist as a scientific school. There is social Darwinism, but thats completely different (we covered all this already, many moons ago). So again with the misusing of terms. As for being sick, feel fine, reading this fascinating PDF right now, although I may have a bit of a scratchy throat and I had a headache last night, but otherwise I feel fine. I am no expert, and neither are you. I am no expert, and neither are you.If that makes you feel better. Basically. Evolution is the process of adaptation to the environment through natural selection.Not to nit-pick but the term Darwinism has many meanings these days. Some people take it to refer to the famous theory proposed by Darwin originally. Others take it to refer to a social concept loosely based on Darwin's set of biological theories. Other people associate it to a concept that belief in evolution is some sort of religion or religion like concept impervious to change or alteration. You, however, seem to be trying to make a claim for Intelligent Design. Your comment seems to be a refutation of the establi... "You, however, seem to be trying to make a claim for Intelligent Design. " You lost me there, altlib. it shows you are only approaching this from a bigoted mindset. I made no defense here of what you claim. @willhelm So, I was wrong. How about, instead of hurling insults you take the time to explain what you truly meant. And since you've brought this up, why do you think my posts on this clip are bigoted? Remember, my comments were directed towards the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and their not hidden desire to introduce a teaching of some sort of faith based view of biology. Jumping in here. My first thought was to make a snarky comment, to the effect that those who support a particular agenda seem always to assume the existance of an equal, opposite and equally unstated agenda in everything those they see as the "other side" does. Then I realized that I did not wish that to be read as a snarky comment. It's perfectly true - and so common as to be the first thing anyone checks in themselves before posting on the assumption that there is a "hidden agenda" or particular motivation in taking a particular stand or advocating a particular course of action. This is complicated by the common-sense observation that if you are honestly advocating an agenda that others ... Damn character limit! The rest of graphictruth's comment: "How can the materialistic philosophic naturalistic base dependency of Darwinism be brought into the discussion and used for our benefit?" Dr. McLeroy asked, according to a recording of the speech. "We didn't use it. All we did was stay with evidence, and we got run over."
|
View the Top Clips from December 16, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
