RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Is the US is losing the battle for science ?, Creationism< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2010,16:16   

Should we be scared or depressed ?:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs....+Ham%29

Quote
At the end of the program I asked the children what was the most likely age of these dinosaur bones—and they all answered, “around four thousand three hundred years ago.”  That was because I taught them that most fossils came from the Flood around 4,300 years ago—the kids certainly got the message!

  
JohnW



Posts: 2201
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2010,16:25   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ July 15 2010,14:16)
Should we be scared or depressed ?:

Neither, Peter.  Fundie pastor + children of fundies ^= biology lesson.

Anyway, consider the source.  It's Ken bleedin' Ham.  I don't know for a fact that he's lying here, but that's the way to bet.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2010,16:45   

I think that the stats that kids are leaving the church in droves speaks for itself.

I think that the internet has a lot to do with it. While we will always have the FL, Slimy Sals etc, once these kids get onto the internet they figure out that they have been lied to.

One of the problems is that like abortion and GW denial, creationism is seen as part of the right wing ideological package.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2090
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2010,18:17   

Trying to parse what you meant by that last sentence, MichaelJ.  

You mean "it's unfortunate that if you're conservative you're expected to swallow all this other crap too"?

Or "these things give the right a bad name"???

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3550
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2010,18:51   

Quote (fnxtr @ July 15 2010,18:17)
Trying to parse what you meant by that last sentence, MichaelJ.  

You mean "it's unfortunate that if you're conservative you're expected to swallow all this other crap too"?

Or "these things give the right a bad name"???

If it were only limited to the right.

Republicans maybe 60 percent, Democrats maybe 40 percent. Margin of error, maybe 15 percent.

The right seems obsessed with sex and fundamentalism. The left is infested with quackery, pseudoscience and woo.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2010,19:23   

Quote (midwifetoad @ July 15 2010,18:51)
The right seems obsessed with sex and fundamentalism. The left is infested with quackery, pseudoscience and woo.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right

NSFW Version

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2010,10:28   

Speaking as a teacher, I have noticed a definite trend within the schools I taught at.

There is a (for lack of a better word) divide forming.  On one side you've got a small group of students with some real knowledge, skills, and potentional in regards to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics).  On the other side, there is a large number of students for whom STEM is out of reach.  

By "out of reach" I mean, the students don't have the knowledge and skills that they should have for the course or grade they are in.*  They also don't have any interest in STEM because of a variety of factors, but many come from previous instruction by poor quality teachers.

Of course, socio-economic issues are a big part of this as well (though they can afford $250 Nike shoes and 3 X-boxes, but they are still on the school lunch program).

Unfortunately, because everything in our future revolves around science, these kids (who will grow up to be a large block of voters) will not understand the issues or how to deal with them.

In that regard, I think that, yes, we are losing the battle for science.




* My favorite example was a student who had been placed in Chemistry I who was in his third year of developmental math (i.e. not yet up to 8th grade math level).

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2010,10:55   

Are we all familiar with Douglas Adams' "B Ark?"

I used to tell my kids that they could study and learn, or ship out on the B Ark.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 990
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2010,12:06   

While I see some creationist inspired resistance to science, the far bigger general threat I see is many students lack of rigorous thinking.  I've encountered far too many students who simply can't/won't see the kind of detail that you have to pay attention to in order to have success in math and science.  Students who just don't see the difference between upper and lowercase letters, between super and subscripts.  The number of students who won't use a formula to guide a calculation, but instead arbitrarily start multiplying/dividing numbers until the get something they think looks like an answer.  It's a lack of focus, and I suspect it's at least correlated with the use of ten different electronic gadgets at any given second.

Because they have so much trouble thinking scientifically, when you do run into a topic which is at odds with their religious/cultural beliefs, they can't really see the scientific evidence for what is is.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
k.e..



Posts: 2838
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2010,12:51   

OK HOMO'S; LISTEN UP!

LETS BE GENERHOURUS.

NOT EVERYONE IS AN AUTODIDACT OR HAS AN IQ NORTH OF AN INUIT BOBSLED DOING 200 FURLONGS PER FOURTNIGHT.

I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE SAYS, HERE AT THE FLOATING COMMAND CENTRE REDNECK GASOLINE SNIFFING HASN'T REDUCED THIS DESIGNERS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO BEAR CONCEALED MUD FENCE UGLY TURNIP TRUCK PASSENGER PSEUDO AGNOSTIC PATENTS ON SUCKING UP TO BIG TIME SWEATER WEARERS.

I KNOW YOU ALL THINK I'M RETIRED BUT REALITY ONLY HAS A LIBURAL BIAS BECAUSE MY BEST PAL BILL DEMBSKI CAN'T GET PEER REVIEWED BY A GOAT.

P.S. BILL, PLEASE CALL.

PPS ALL THOSE SURVEYS THAT SAY EDUCATION & INTULLINCGE IS INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO LITERAL BIBLE BELIEVING ARE STEPHEN B...erm......ooops

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2090
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2010,12:51   

I wonder if that's a case of society outpacing the abilities of its members.  

As the world becomes more complex and technology-dependent, we need more individuals capable of understanding it, but the average kid hasn't become any smarter, or any more motivated to "do science", than they were in 1950.  

The small Canadian town I grew up in in the 70's was still 80% lugnuts and anti-learning.  

Some kids get the message that post-secondary education is vital these days, but they get it too late, or don't realize just how much <i>work</i> it can be.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2090
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2010,12:53   

Crap. Wrong brackets.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2010,13:01   

Quote (fnxtr @ July 16 2010,12:51)
I wonder if that's a case of society outpacing the abilities of its members.  

As the world becomes more complex and technology-dependent, we need more individuals capable of understanding it, but the average kid hasn't become any smarter, or any more motivated to "do science", than they were in 1950.  

The small Canadian town I grew up in in the 70's was still 80% lugnuts and anti-learning.  

Some kids get the message that post-secondary education is vital these days, but they get it too late, or don't realize just how much <i>work</i> it can be.

The guy who does Dilbert (I forget his name) wrote a book and included something along these lines.

He said that when humans level of technology was limited to the spear, we could handle that.  Pointy end forward, no big deal.  But, relatively suddenly, we have cell phones, the iPhone/Android debate, space shuttles, and 50,000 kinds of plastics.

The human brain just can't keep up, even the smartest in our society are becoming dumber and dumber.  Sure they may be experts in quantum chromodynamics, but I bet they can't kill a leopard with a spear.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2010,13:01   

Quote
Is the US is losing the battle for science ?


--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2010,14:17   

One word, one movie: Idiocracy

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
skeptic reborn



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2010,20:28   

*Sigh*
I see the melodrama hasn't changed in four years.  There is no battle for science in the US or anywhere else.  Science is a tool and it is utilized when it is proven effective.  A quick survey of any k-5 Sunday school class would reveal that T-rex died 65 million years ago because of a big damn rock hitting Mexico AND God created the world in 6 six days some 12,000 years ago.  This is not an expose of science in the USA.  These are children repeating what they've been told, nothing more.
Science is utilized every single day where appropriate and required and these same "misguided" children will someday use science where they need to to be successful and productive.  The sad fact that many here miss is the practical application of evolutionary "science" is only relevant to less than 1% of the population and will never be an accurate "biomarker" to measure the health of science knowledge.
If you're looking for a cause of decreasing critical thinking skills among our youth you need look no further than their parents and teachers.  The list of ills here is much too long to mention but suffice it to say comparison studies across cultures reveal markedly different pictures.  Even considering the conventional wisdom, I've watched my five year old explain picture and video publishing to his Facebook page to his Grandmother and the knowledge gap was astonding.  The level of technology exposure that our children receive should not be under-estimated as a better indicator of future potential scientific advances.  Then again, I'm an eternal optimist so that cup is always gonna be half full to me.
On a final note, in every class I've ever taught 90% (or more) of the class was there to learn the material to pass the test and then move on.  Only those few students really wanted to know more and were blessed with that trait that pushed a strong scientific curiosity.  Any teacher will tell you that those are the ones we long for, that reinvigorate the passion for teaching and get us through another year hoping for the next bright soul to come along.  I doubt that this dynamic has changed much in the last 200 years and I'm comfortable asserting that it's unlikely to change in the future.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2010,06:04   

Quote
On a final note, in every class I've ever taught 90% (or more) of the class was there to learn the material to pass the test and then move on.


Indeed skeptic, that's what I seem to remember about school,even up to third level education (I was one of that 90 % I'm afraid, though I was always keen to learn). In that respect, passing the exams and moving on in third level education was important in that it was a means to getting a job. If you were good at this (i.e. passing the exams and then moving on) you could get a very well paid job. I know this all too well from personal experience.  

 
Quote
Only those few students really wanted to know more and were blessed with that trait that pushed a strong scientific curiosity.


But did they pass the exams ? Ther's absolutely no point in being curious at this stage if you can't pass the tests.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2010,08:05   

Skeptic, on most of your points, I agree totally.

However, there is one major point that I think you may not have considered.  Those 90% of the students that don't have critical thinking skills and no/little interest in learning will dominate the political landscape when they get to voting age.

At that point, we get people like McLeroy on the Texas School Board that both don't have any thinking skills AND are in a position to harm further education efforts.

You're right, there is no 'battle for science' in the sense that science will go away.  But there is a battle for the education of science and the US is in trouble.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2010,09:45   

Quote (OgreMkV @ July 18 2010,08:05)
Skeptic, on most of your points, I agree totally.

However, there is one major point that I think you may not have considered.  Those 90% of the students that don't have critical thinking skills and no/little interest in learning will dominate the political landscape when they get to voting age.

At that point, we get people like McLeroy on the Texas School Board that both don't have any thinking skills AND are in a position to harm further education efforts.

You're right, there is no 'battle for science' in the sense that science will go away.  But there is a battle for the education of science and the US is in trouble.

Indeed: If critical thinking and the ability to understand science as a process is not emphasized, we generate a citizenry that is easily fooled into investing in garbage cures, garbage diets, UFO protection. We have a citizenry that considers prayer as effective approach to the problems of the day (like oil spills, drought, etc) We have a citizenry that cannot make appropriate decisions about fossil fuels, nuclear power, climate, safety, medicine, nutrition, public health. If evolution can be ignored because it might be deemed offensive or unnecessary, any science area can be ignored for the same reason. If you are taught that evolution is a conspiracy to separate you from your faith, then you can be lead to believe that other scientific facts are fabricated for political reasons and can be dismissed.

I run into adults that don't believe the scientific process is self-correcting (over time) or that the scientific community is very conservative (resistant to changing a paradigm) because they have no idea how science is done. Since few schools have their students DO science, they are not getting that part of their education. Since the hard sciences are pretty difficult and involve mathematics, few people take hard sciences in college, and many universities don't teach a liberal-arts approach to science, just applications in narrow fields.

As a science educator, I am very concerned. We now teach Chinese. Perhaps that's so we can work for them when they pass us in innovation and creativity in the sciences. I'm not sure, because I see some weaknesses in how the Chinese educate their kids, too.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2010,11:29   

ike, in terms of available education for everyone, I think the US wins hands down.  On the other hand, I think more US students don't appreciate the opportunity and waste it.

I once had a great discussion of how phosphors on TV screens worked (before most TVs were LCD and plasma) and after this detailed discussion, one of my students answered the end of the day pop quiz with "ghosts cause TVs to sometimes glow at night".

sigh...

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2010,15:27   

I keep hearing the phrase "critical thinking" from YECs (often from those with no science qualifications whatsoever) but what is it ?

When I did chemistry, it was a case of learning and remembering facts and theories and applying those to questions posed in exams, not critical thinking. I'm sure this must be the same in biology and other subjects. In my opinion, the real critical thinking comes at post grad stage i.e. PhD level. Not post primary level.  

For example, I learned organic chemistry from this book:

http://www.ebook3000.com/Organic-Chemistry--6th-Edition-_18102.html

How do you do critical thinking in  organic chemistry ? Is it a case of attempting to prove Morrison and Boyd wrong ?

  
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2010,17:04   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ July 18 2010,15:27)
I keep hearing the phrase "critical thinking" from YECs (often from those with no science qualifications whatsoever) but what is it ?

I'm not sure this answers your question, but let me describe how science can taught, even at high school level but certainly in undergrad:

Once the students have gained a little experience and content, their hands on exercises can be open-ended inquiry. For example (obviously some disciplines are better adapted for this than others) a biology class can learn basic field techniques to do a local stream study or diversity survey. If the classes do this yearly, they can accumulate data that can be analyzed for statistical value, produce studies that the next year's students can expand on, or show changes or variation in a population. The methodology (collecting, sampling, journal writing, classifying, researching in books and on the web about habitat, etc) is what field scientists do.

Now, of course, this takes time. Time that right now is devoted to preparing for exams, like gateway, AP, etc. These are mostly content exams, and the content is dictated. Teachers must have the time to take students outside and teach them how to do science. Schools saddled with NCLB test score requirements won't. Schools with limited facilities, insufficient equipment and supplies, oversized or unruly classes and teachers teaching outside their area of expertise to fill gaps won't.

Other examples can be described in physics, chemistry, etc. where students design experiments (with guidance, of course) choose methods, select equipment that can perform the task to the precision desired, define and control variables, predict outcome, assemble class information and run statistics on it, etc. They can suggest sources of error that are common to all groups, or suggest how one group might have gotten a result that was different than the others.  That is science.

I know it's possible because my school does it, even at middle school level. But we have all the advantages and none of the problems that most schools have. Kids enjoy science because they do it, not just learn about it.

The amazing thing is there are teachers that pull it off in a few public schools, in spite of all the disadvantages I listed. Some do amazing things with environmental science, even in big cities. These innovative teachers scrounge for funds, involve local science groups and businesses, and generate lots of excitement.

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2010,02:35   

Quote (fnxtr @ July 16 2010,09:17)
Trying to parse what you meant by that last sentence, MichaelJ.  

You mean "it's unfortunate that if you're conservative you're expected to swallow all this other crap too"?

Or "these things give the right a bad name"???

Sorry, I get a case of the O'leary's sometimes.

I was trying to say that I don't think that creationism is not always about religion but more about group identification.
I think that if a handful of key people came out and said that creationism is a joke then the stats would change.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2010,04:41   

Quote (lkeithlu @ July 18 2010,17:04)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ July 18 2010,15:27)
I keep hearing the phrase "critical thinking" from YECs (often from those with no science qualifications whatsoever) but what is it ?

I'm not sure this answers your question, but let me describe how science can taught, even at high school level but certainly in undergrad:

Once the students have gained a little experience and content, their hands on exercises can be open-ended inquiry. For example (obviously some disciplines are better adapted for this than others) a biology class can learn basic field techniques to do a local stream study or diversity survey. If the classes do this yearly, they can accumulate data that can be analyzed for statistical value, produce studies that the next year's students can expand on, or show changes or variation in a population. The methodology (collecting, sampling, journal writing, classifying, researching in books and on the web about habitat, etc) is what field scientists do.

Now, of course, this takes time. Time that right now is devoted to preparing for exams, like gateway, AP, etc. These are mostly content exams, and the content is dictated. Teachers must have the time to take students outside and teach them how to do science. Schools saddled with NCLB test score requirements won't. Schools with limited facilities, insufficient equipment and supplies, oversized or unruly classes and teachers teaching outside their area of expertise to fill gaps won't.

Other examples can be described in physics, chemistry, etc. where students design experiments (with guidance, of course) choose methods, select equipment that can perform the task to the precision desired, define and control variables, predict outcome, assemble class information and run statistics on it, etc. They can suggest sources of error that are common to all groups, or suggest how one group might have gotten a result that was different than the others.  That is science.

I know it's possible because my school does it, even at middle school level. But we have all the advantages and none of the problems that most schools have. Kids enjoy science because they do it, not just learn about it.

The amazing thing is there are teachers that pull it off in a few public schools, in spite of all the disadvantages I listed. Some do amazing things with environmental science, even in big cities. These innovative teachers scrounge for funds, involve local science groups and businesses, and generate lots of excitement.

Interesting.

I'm sure I did quite a lot of that when I was at school, even up to third level chemistry.

However, I think the YECs see critical thinking as something entirely different. If they can fill kids minds with the crap I've quoted from Ken Ham above for example, then the kids can actually challenge the theory itself (or so they imagine). Not the same thing at all.

  
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2010,07:31   

Since science is really a collaborative exercise now, people don't realize that the days of the true science "rock star" like Darwin, Einstein, etc are over. Einstein was so brilliant that his ideas took decades to verify, as the technology had to catch up. There is so much out there now, no one can know it all. However, in their own area of expertise, there are lots of "experts" out there. We must trust that they can pass judgment on new ideas or new evidence for us. The importance of journals and peer review is greater than ever, but the public has no idea what peer review is.

I guess I really came to understand this on PT a couple of years ago. A radiograph of a fossil was posted, and various people were commenting on its traits. What became obvious is that these folks had worked with many, many fossils and could pick out details that were either reptilian or mammalian. Laypeople like me could not. I get angry when a hominid fossil is announced and creationists say "looks like an ape to me!" when they have no experience whatever in fossils. But the average citizen has no idea that people study things like this throughout their careers, and that mileage and experience really do count.

Recently a local paper published a story about the decline of amphibians in the area. The comments the website received indicated that no one even had an idea how scientists collected the information that showed the decline. Because they had "seen" a frog yesterday meant that they must be doing fine (no AGW therefore) so they clearly had no idea about the difference between anecdote and empirical data.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2010,08:52   

Where do you teach Ike?  We may be moving in a year or so and I want my kid in classes like that.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2010,08:58   

Quote (OgreMkV @ July 19 2010,08:52)
Where do you teach Ike?  We may be moving in a year or so and I want my kid in classes like that.

How nice! I teach at a private school. I'd be happy to email you a linky to our website.

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2012,09:03   

Not sure if this belongs here or elsewhere, but I heard
this and this unsurprising news on the radio this morning:

Quote
A U.S. government study has found that only one in three children in middle school and junior high school show proficiency in science. Unfortunately, it gets worse for kids in high school. Many studies have indicated U.S. teens trail peers from many countries in math scores.

...

The results are disturbing:

•    Only one in three children in middle school and junior high school show proficiency in science.

•    Only one in five graduating students from high school showed proficiency in science.

•    Specifically, in 2009, 34% of fourth grade children performed at or above the “proficient” level in science, while only 30% of eighth graders performed at or above the "proficient" level and, even worse, only 21% of those 12th graders participating in the study could perform at or above the "proficient" level in science.

•    In fourth grade, 28% of students could not meet the “basic” level of science knowledge; in eighth grade 37% of students couldn’t meet the "basic" science level; and in 12th grade, 47% of students couldn’t achieve a "basic" level of science.

  Only between 1% and 2% show a strong knowledge of “advanced” scientific concepts.




Quote
State science standards failed to treat evolution adequately in a number of ways, according to the report — by including evolution only in courses that are electives or in guidelines not subject to state assessment, as in Missouri, Tennessee, and Maryland; by suggesting that evolution is "somehow not quite as 'scientific' as other concepts," as in Colorado, Missouri, Montana, and West Virginia; or by unnecessarily delaying evolution until high school, as in Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Nebraska.


Maybe FL can explain why this is the case, particularly in places like Louisiana and Texas.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
The whole truth



Posts: 972
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2012,19:32   

This crap should be considered child abuse and the perps should be impeached, prosecuted, and jailed (or at least tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail).

Carrier said, "We try to stay away from all those things that might confuse our children."

Yeah, like a real education about reality. Indoctrinating them with insane religious fairy tales will be a lot less confusing to them, eh?

I'm embarrassed to be a US American. This country is going down the shitter.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Freddie



Posts: 365
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2012,01:48   

Quote (The whole truth @ June 25 2012,19:32)
This crap should be considered child abuse and the perps should be impeached, prosecuted, and jailed (or at least tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail).

Carrier said, "We try to stay away from all those things that might confuse our children."

Yeah, like a real education about reality. Indoctrinating them with insane religious fairy tales will be a lot less confusing to them, eh?

I'm embarrassed to be a US American. This country is going down the shitter.

I'm calling Poe ... I mean look at the contacts page on their (horrible) website, these are obviously completely made up names.



--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

  
  39 replies since July 15 2010,16:16 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]