"Creation science ... should be incorporated into every Biology book" in Texas

[ThinClient]

They'd teach it, quit, or get fired. Perhaps we get another "Monkey trial".

With any luck, that would be freaking awesome.

 

[sandorski]

The future, outside the Texas Supreme Court, opening day of the Monkey Trial 2.0

Swarm of Media: "In what's sure to be the story of the century......"

Chanting protestors: "I ain't come from no damned monkey!"

Clinton, partially overhearing, on unrelated business but seen by the Media and forced to respond: "I have not had sexual relations, with any monkey...to the best of my recollection."

 

[boomerang]

What in the world are you talking about, and in what way is it relevant to this topic?

100% relevant. Because you used it as the opening of your "argument". Instead of staying with the science or perhaps separation of church and state aspects, you decided to start off with something that thus far appears to be irrelevant.

Have you done any looking into the question on your own?

Enough to know that it's pure bullshit that has been passed around so much that it's considered to be the gospel by people who are prone to falling for sensationalistic stories. The basis of concern is an article that theorized that it was a possibility with nothing to back up the theory.

You should object to creation science being put into textbooks because you have a strong belief in science. Adding in the financial concerns is pure BS and was very easy to see through.

 

[Arglebargle]

This has some interesting bits about how the clout of the Texas Education Board has just recently been shrunk. Both California and Texas had some defacto power just due to the huge numbers of books orders. At least in Texas, that appears to be lessening. Due to the underappreciation of voters, some pretty agenda driven extremists have targetted these positions.

I am fine with creation science, ID, etc, being taught in comparative religion classes. Don't think that's on the Texas agenda though.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/...as-board-of-ed-loses-its-power-over-textbooks

 

[MomentsofSanity]

This is laughable at best. Queue the Spaghetti Monster. We have already gone through this once before with Kansas.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Update 7:35 p.m. ET: The Texas State Board of Education has preliminarily approved Education Commissioner Robert Scott's slate of supplemental biology materials, which do not include creationism or intelligent design. A final vote is scheduled for Friday.
While the public testimony was passionate at times, the board's debate was uneventful before members voted to reject proposed additional materials that discuss intelligent design. Republican board member David Bradley, who supports introducing intelligent design into the curriculum, joked that the audience might want its tickets refunded.

And that ends that debate.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

100% relevant. Because you used it as the opening of your "argument". Instead of staying with the science or perhaps separation of church and state aspects, you decided to start off with something that thus far appears to be irrelevant.


Enough to know that it's pure bullshit that has been passed around so much that it's considered to be the gospel by people who are prone to falling for sensationalistic stories. The basis of concern is an article that theorized that it was a possibility with nothing to back up the theory.

You should object to creation science being put into textbooks because you have a strong belief in science. Adding in the financial concerns is pure BS and was very easy to see through.

I repeat my earlier, heretofore unanswered question: what in the world are you talking about?

 

[AViking]

I'm really curious what Boomerang is talking about. None of that made sense. I initially got the impression that you were trying to make this a Republican vs Democrat debate. It's not. This is a rational person vs irrational person debate and as we saw it was quickly voted down.

This need to paint everything by numbers as R, D, Progressive, Liberal, etc really doesn't belong in here does it? Maybe I read the description of this section wrong. Arguing that a state has a lot of purchasing power seems legit though even if I disagree.

If we were talking about expanding a freeway from 2 lanes to 3 and someone brought up the financial implications of it you wouldn't use the same logic I hope?

 

[woolfe9998]

I repeat my earlier, heretofore unanswered question: what in the world are you talking about?

He thinks because you said:

If a state wants a different text than has been approved in Texas, the increased cost is significant.

That you were complaining about the cost of the textbooks. He apparently doesn't understand that your reference to the increased cost of getting an alternative textbook was an expression of concern that this higher cost means other states would adopt the cheaper Texas books with the creationist content.

Reading comprehension is apparently not his strong suit.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That you were complaining about the cost of the textbooks. He apparently doesn't understand that your reference to the increased cost of getting an alternative textbook was an expression of concern that this higher cost means other states would adopt the cheaper Texas books with the creationist content.

Reading comprehension is apparently not his strong suit.

There's a reason that the extreme right-wingers rarely post here. And they can't blame it on me being a moderator any more, either.

MomentsofSanity: I was encouraged by your update, but unfortunately it seems to be from the last time science-deniers tried this back in 2011.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

There's a reason that the extreme right-wingers rarely post here. And they can't blame it on me being a moderator any more, either.

MomentsofSanity: I was encouraged by your update, but unfortunately it seems to be from the last time science-deniers tried this back in 2011.

Well that makes me not want to live on this planet any more. I assumed the link was to the current incarnation of the debate...

 

[smackababy]

Well that makes me not want to live on this planet any more. I assumed the link was to the current incarnation of the debate...

Texas has tried this a few times, among other crap. In the 70s they had numbers for gay youth counselling removed from health education textbooks as well.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Does't putting creationism into public school text books present a Constitutional problem?

Eventually yes based on things found here

The problem of course is in the wording of the texts and policy in how clever they are and then someone bringing a successful legal challenge. As we've been told things aren't unconstitutional until it's declared as such.

So I suppose the question would be who challenges, on what basis based on the specifics in question, and when? I would think (and you are more expert on this than I am) that as soon as things are formalized an injunction could be sought in federal court. Is this true?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There's a reason that the extreme right-wingers rarely post here. And they can't blame it on me being a moderator any more, either.

I can't speak for others and I wouldn't characterize myself as an extreme right-winger; however, one reason I rarely post here anymore is that I don't like walking on eggshells wondering if I going to get infracted for speaking my mind.

Another reason, is that it appears that many liberals in this particular forum don't actually want conservative participation per se...they're really just here to attack and ridicule conservative extremists and their less than flattering caricatures of conservatives...as if this somehow reinforces their self-perceived intellectual/moral superiority over conservatives in general. I find this particular forum to be a very strange place which reeks a bit too much of arrogance and condescension for my tastes. That's a couple reasons why I don't post here much.

 

[sandorski]

Stick to facts and proper(ish) argumentation and there are no problems.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I can't speak for others and I wouldn't characterize myself as an extreme right-winger; however, one reason I rarely post here anymore is that I don't like walking on eggshells wondering if I going to get infracted for speaking my mind.

The only moderator in DC is a conservative. The place has been open for the better part of a year, and I'm still not aware of anyone getting an actual infraction based on anything posted here that wouldn't earn an infraction anywhere else. So this "concern" has no foundation to it, yet people -- again nearly all of them right-wingers -- keep bringing it up anyway.

I find this particular forum to be a very strange place which reeks a bit too much of arrogance and condescension for my tastes.

Which is why you keep to P&N, which is a veritable mountain spring of humility. Gotcha.

It's quite simple, actually: most of the right-wingers on AT are either uninterested in rational dialog, or incapable of it. So they prefer a place where it is both optional and rarely practiced.

 

[woolfe9998]

Eventually yes based on things found here

The problem of course is in the wording of the texts and policy in how clever they are and then someone bringing a successful legal challenge. As we've been told things aren't unconstitutional until it's declared as such.

So I suppose the question would be who challenges, on what basis based on the specifics in question, and when? I would think (and you are more expert on this than I am) that as soon as things are formalized an injunction could be sought in federal court. Is this true?

Probably not because there would be an issue of standing. More likely they'd have to actually circulate the texts, then some atheist parents become plaintiffs in a lawsuit.

Still, Edwards v. Aguillard would be the death knell of this. I don't see how it can survive that precedent unless the SCOTUS is willing to overturn it.

 

[Albatross]

Thats the bad part of certain strands of Protestantism gone wild.You need a certain amount of rigorous theology in religion otherwise every dumbfuck out there can choose whatever he wants.They take the easiest way(literal interpretation) and run with it.Theologians 2000 years ago were talking about different levels of interpretation of the bible(Origene) nowadays that`s too hard.These people should be atheist,it would be better for Christianity.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Thats the bad part of certain strands of Protestantism gone wild.You need a certain amount of rigorous theology in religion otherwise every dumbfuck out there can choose whatever he wants.They take the easiest way(literal interpretation) and run with it.Theologians 2000 years ago were talking about different levels of interpretation of the bible(Origene) nowadays that`s too hard.These people should be atheist,it would be better for Christianity.

It's as much cultural as religious I think. In the Northeast most Christians I associate with do a facepalm when they hear these sorts of things. It's mostly a southern phenomenon . Don't ask me why, but there's something about that region which draws more than its fair share of Texan mentality, besides Texas that is.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's as much cultural as religious I think. In the Northeast most Christians I associate with do a facepalm when they hear these sorts of things. It's mostly a southern phenomenon . Don't ask me why, but there's something about that region which draws more than its fair share of Texan mentality, besides Texas that is.

The problem, I think, of course, is the issue of self hate and how it manifests culture to culture. Everybody becomes sensitive and defensive about the things they are negatively stereotyped about. The result of this sort of self hate, naturally, is that it gets projected, the other is seen as evil and mean, and deserving of retribution of one sort or another. In the case of the culturally backward South, as the stereotype runs here, we get a mean and vindictive people who see the culturally evolved as evil and in need of the saving graces of a backwardly ignorant and culturally deprived life.

You can pity the self imposed stupidity of Southern culture, as regards these vengeful aspects, but you can't force them to evolve by confrontation. Self hate is a permanent condition because it exists to deny its factualness. We do not want to know what shits we are because of our self hate. And we make everybody pay. Who in the more evolved cultural places of the US doesn't wish to see this backward aspect of Southern culture die. That's what makes the rest of us also assholes.

 

[Greenman]

It's quite simple, actually: most of the right-wingers on AT are either uninterested in rational dialog, or incapable of it. So they prefer a place where it is both optional and rarely practiced.

Textbook example of what Doc Savage was saying, condescending and insulting. Tell us again how fair and balanced this area is. This is just P&N run by the politically correct, that's why so few bother with it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Textbook example of what Doc Savage was saying, condescending and insulting.

Sorry you feel that way, but it happens to be accurate.

I gave up on this experiment months ago because it became clear to me that most of the people on this board are more interested in expressing hatred than in peacable exchanges of ideas. Of the few who actually do find value in reasonable discussion, very few of them are right-wingers. It's not because of "condescension and insults" because those things are far more commonplace in P&N where they participate disproportionately.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sorry you feel that way, but it happens to be accurate.

I gave up on this experiment months ago because it became clear to me that most of the people on this board are more interested in expressing hatred than in peacable exchanges of ideas. Of the few who actually do find value in reasonable discussion, very few of them are right-wingers. It's not because of "condescension and insults" because those things are far more commonplace in P&N where they participate disproportionately.

This is exactly the case, But the explanation for it is clear if you will see that the hatred you say that most are most interested in expressing is the outward expression, the projection, of actual hatred of self. Greenman and the rest of us came into the thread already feeling looked down on and insulted and in denial that we do. It is this denial of our real condition that makes everything hopeless. You may not be able to feel it emotionally, but you may be able to see, intellectually, that this explains everything to a tee.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This is exactly the case, But the explanation for it is clear if you will see that the hatred you say that most are most interested in expressing is the outward expression, the projection, of actual hatred of self. Greenman and the rest of us came into the thread already feeling looked down on and insulted and in denial that we do. It is this denial of our real condition that makes everything hopeless. You may not be able to feel it emotionally, but you may be able to see, intellectually, that this explains everything to a tee.

Perhaps not everything, but yes, it's a big part of it I am sure. That particular aspect of the human condition is not unique to any political philosophy, of course.

 

[Jaskalas]

Quite frankly, I would hope that any critical thinker could recognize the scientific failure of so-called "creation science" from the fact that it has to be specifically inserted into textbooks by an elected board of non-scientists.

Agreed. Your topic title lost me the moment it combined those two words. Frankly, there's not much to discuss on the subject. We should almost all be in agreement.

 

[Onceler]

Tell me about your sig Thin
Are you saying that an intelligent person automatically adheres to those values and morals? Cause last time I looked the most vile war makers and violators of human rights in history were extremely intelligent people. Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon,...etc. They in no way valued morals or anything decent.