Mickey

Willllliiiiiisssss noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Wouldn't that be a case of big, bad, jack-booted thugs from the federal government dictating to poor defenseless states, even as to the details of when to hold their own primaries?

Yet your silence spoke volumes, hinting of a deeper, profound but unspoken wisdom.

OG, I wouldn't deny that to many atheists, evolution is prominent and even thought of as dispositive as to the non-existence of God to some. I just don't think that science teachers are using it that way, nor should they. People are all over the block on this is my guess. Some see evolution and other discoveries/theories as leaving less and less room for the divine. Others see no conflict at all between science and religion while still others see nothing but. As for science classes though, I am more worried that 45% think the Earth is only 10,000 years old than I am with the possibility that the 5% of people who are atheists became so because of something their science teacher said. Frankly, I think nasty priests and the occasional sadistic nun have created more atheists than Darwin.

Good point, I was in HS from '74-'78, back when a calculator was called a "computer", and I don't recall learning anything about evolution. Of course, mini-skirts were so short back then that I was too distracted to learn much of anything.

Yeah, I was there last monday morning when he made a great catch at the back of the endzone and came down in bounds right in front of TD. I didn't see him drop a single pass but then again, neither did Reed.

I agree, I am not crazy about Gandy but whoever our starting left tackle is going to be, I think he is already on the roster. Gandy, Peters, Teague, somebody.

I am not trying to defend the teaching methods of thousands of science teachers because I have no idea what they are doing. I am sure there are some whose techniques could be vastly improved. So I have no problem with the notion that there could be something wrong here. That is really why I have asked for the evidence, to see if there reallly is anything to that notion. I even looked myself, hence all the links I provided. What I found was that there just is no significant evidence that this problem exists. Balancing that is the argument you have made to the contrary and though I respect and appreciate your thoughts on the issue, I remain unconvinced. In the end, I found the stats I located more convincing than your arguments and the "bumper sticker hypothesis", and I don't mean to mock that set of observations. I think the bumper stickers are more a reflection, not of the number of atheists, but of their increasing willingness to be open about their beliefs or, if you prefer, their non-beliefs. In the end, we agree on the ends, just not the path that gets us there. Apparently, I am descended from a particulary argumentative species of ape.

Respectfully, I disagree and I apologize if anything I said seemed to you to be a personal assualt on your intellect. I did see where you don't think ID should be taught in science class and on that we agree. I don't however agree that it is a response to something scientists have done. Recall that at one point it was illegal to teach evolution and periodically, some have tried to resurrect that type of prohibition. Certainly, the intial outlawing of evolution wasn't a response to the way it was being taught, it was a preemptive strike to keep it from ever being taught. Having read the wedge document setting out the strategy of the leading proponents of ID, who previously were the leading proponents of creationism, who were previously the leading proponents of teaching Genesis, and who were previously the leading proponents of outlawing evolution, I believe the motivation is not a response to proplems in the curriculum but a planned attack on evolution. When I read that the majority of Americans and certainly the majority of people who want ID in the schools, believe in a "young earth", ie one that is only about 10,000 years old even though we know it is 4.3 billion years old, I can't help suspecting that people want ID taught for reasons other than the ones you cite. Perhaps we can simply agree that with 95% of Americans believing in God, atheism is not really a national problem and further, that teaching ID in science class is a bad idea?

Where is it that I called you stupid? We simply disagree over the idea that the way evolution is being taught in schools is somehow causing an increase in the number of atheists. When people disagree, it is not unusual for them to examine the basis for their relative positions. To support your position, you offered this stuff about bumper stickers. I offered links to actual polls showing that there are hardly any atheists. In trying to understand your argument, I reduced it to a syllogism, a common method used to try and understand another's reasoning and in presenting it, I clearly stated that it was only how I understood your argument. I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was simply trying to understand your logic. I ask you to go back and read again the polls I presented, especially the column with the surveys of numerous polls going back to the 1970's. What they show is that belief in God has increased over time, not decreased. For example, in 1987, 60% of Americans agreed that they "never doubted the existence of God". Thirteen years later, that number rose to 69%. In 1973, 77% believed in life after death but by 1998, that number grew to 82%. Before you pronounce a 5% rise to be insignificant, recall that you declared a study showing that 95% of people in the US believe in God to be "completely irrelevant" because of no comparison with a poll taken before evolution was taught. If you are right, under a worst case scenario for my argument, 100% of Americans would have been believers before evolution was taught and after 50 or 60 years of such teaching, the number of true believers has plummeted a whopping 5%. That is if I give you the benefit of every doubt and assume, to help your argument, that there wasn't a single atheist alive in the US before the teaching of evolution in American schools became widespread. If you are right, why is the number of true believers increasing the longer evolution is being taught? If your hypothesis is correct, wouldn't the numbers being going the other way? Another huge survey done in 2001 covering over 14,000 congregations in the United States found that about half of those congregations were founded after 1945. If teaching evolution creates atheists, why did the nation experience a doubling of its religious organizations during the time when teaching evolution became prevalent in the nation's schools? On a list of 50 nations, the US was ranked 43rd in the proportion of atheists as it has only 3-9% of its people who are either agnostic or atheist. Italy has more atheist for goodness sakes. This was a 2005 study by the way (Stats on American Athesists). It is ironic that you are lecturing on the scientific method at the same time you pronounce a poll showing that 95% of Americans believe in God to be irrelevant to the question of whether we have a national problem of science teachers using evolution to create atheists while at the same time relying on your personal observations of bumper stickers to support your position. If personal observation is your preference, my observations indicate to me that far from experiencing an outbreak of atheism, religion and the religious have grown in numbers and influence at an amazing rate over the last 20 years. The political clout of the religious right is a pretty clear indicator of that development. In my lifetime, religious passion and its involvment in every aspect of daily life has been on a steady rise. Prayer in schools may be down but it is up everywhere else. I even saw a bunch of Bills players huddling for a prayer after practice the other day. You wouldn't have seen that in 1975 but today that kind of thing is so common it is hardly even noticed. In the internet age, would it really be all that tough for you to dig up something objective that shows first that atheism is on the rise and second that there is a causal link between teaching evolution and this alleged rise in atheism?

Stupid kids, aren't they listening?

C'mon OG, you are not going to sit there and pretend that science hasn't been under attack by religion for the better part of the last 10 centuries are you? If that were not the case, we wouldn't have to be fighting this same fight over and over about teaching Genesis in science classes nor would we have had to worry about laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Fact is, we have and we are. Read the Creationists "Wedge Document", it pretty much says it all. Their goal is to replace current science with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Its practically a manifesto against science. Wedge Document Their fish bumper sticker isn't the problem. Enough with the stickers already. Joining the school board to change the curriculum to force the teaching of Genesis in science class is what I object to and I don't care what kind of bumper sticker the person doing it has on their car.

See the polls that I cited in my other reply. Your contention that science classes are being taught in such a way that they are creating atheists is simply not true despite the bumper sticker evidence.

1. Science teachers teach evolution. 2. There are atheists who believe in evolution. 3. Therefore science teachers are creating atheists In my example, I think 1 and 2 are widely accepted. However, your assertion that "There are many people leaving class thinking evolution disproves God" is a contention on your part that I don't think is correct and this is why I have asked for sources, studies, something. Your response has been basically to tell me about bumper stickers. Now I am not asking you to design a 10 year study on the issue but certainly, I don't think I am being too exacting to ask for something more than your personal observations of bumper stickers and assumptions about the persons who placed them there. What research I have done, does not support your contention. The most recent Gallup poll on the issue (2004) shows that 48% of Americans believe that God created man in his present form only 10,000 years ago. Another 38% accept evolution but believe that it was directed by God. Only 13% believe that God played no role in the development of the species. Gallup Here is a link to a column that discusses a whole list of polls on the issue which, to summarize, conclude that about 95% of Americans believe in God. In fact, one poll showed that 36% of Americans believe that they have personally witnessed a miracle. Americans and Religion It seems to me that these polls, apart from your bumper sticker study, indicate that teaching evolution in science class is not creating atheists in droves. Inserting religion into science class is not a remedy to the problem because in fact, there is no problem.

That is what I'm not getting either. I think it ends up reading like this: 1. Science teachers teach evolution. 2. There are atheists who believe in evolution. 3. Therefore science teachers are creating atheists. Maybe I am not understanding what he is trying to say but honestly, that is what I am hearing from him. I don't see how he goes from step 2 to step 3. I have to assume I am missing something because this just doesn't make sense.

I don't dispute that people with the Darwin stickers don't believe in a divine creator I just don't see why you attribute their beliefs to the way evolution is being taught in schools. Certainly, there are people who can think as they do independent of anything they were taught in high school science classes. Science class isn't the only place where people learn things and form their own beliefs. I am having trouble understanding what you are saying in that last paragraph. What is the "improper result" scientists are not correcting?

Okay, I found it, I think. Do you mean the one about fish bumper stickers? I don't know that those stickers are used in science classes are they? I wouldn't blame those stickers on science teachers nor do I see them as proof that evolution is being taught in a way that leads kids to see God as a myth. Are you trying to say that the people with the Darwin stickers don't beleive in God and must have been led to that position because evolution was taught to them in such a way as to convince them that God is a myth? Just trying to understand the logic here of how you go from bumper stickers to a conclusion about how evolution is being taught in schools.

I can't find it, if you know where it is, please cut it and paste it, we are talking 8 pages I think by now. All I could find was the spaghetti monster discussion. I saw where you said this: "Deny it all you want, but the teaching of evolution in schools has led many to believe there is no God." Is that the reference you mean??? Maybe you could name me three schools whose curriculum teaches evolution in a way that leads many to believe there is no God? I am not trying to tear anything apart here, if there is proof of this, great, if not and this is just your general impression without any specific examples, fine. I just want to know if this is objective or subjective.

I don't think that science is the answer to all questions, just that it is the answer to science questions. I don't think it offers superior ideas on all things, just superior ideas relating to scienctific problems. I have no problem at all with the idea that we, as a species, are not so superior. In fact, I don't think God holds us in any more favor than he does an oak tree. I wasn't trying to tick you off but if you are going to say something like technology never righted a wrong, can't I disagree? I assume you want to discuss these ideas or you wouldn't be posting them.

I didn't read anyother thread on this and, again, the words he used were pretty plain, to attack me for taking them at face value is just silly. Many times on this board someone says somthing meant as a joke, forgets to put in a and the response is to simply say, "sorry, just joking". If that was the case, that there was an inside joke I wasn't getting, that is all you had to say rather than going into nasy mode. As for "lashing out", all I said in that entire post was: "I think that is a really broad generalization" Is that what you consider lashing out??? I see what you mean by looking silly.

I read some reference to a flying spaghetti monster in a discussion you had with Bluefire and, I think, Run With the Ball. Never heard of it. I'm guessing that some author was comparing belief in God to believing a flying spaghetti monster? Is this something that is found in the curriculum of a lot of school districts? You have charged a number of times in this thread that the way evolution is being taught is leading children to believe that God is a myth. I have never seen any proof of such a thing myslef. I am simply trying to find out if you are basing that charge on real evidence, anecdotal evidence, your own analysis or what. Most surveys show that belief in God in this country is more than prevalent and certainly, evolution is widely taught so I don't see that the poor way in which you say evolution is being taught really is having the result you claim: children believing God is a myth. Here is a link to some info on this Flying Spaghetti Monster" thing: FSM I don't see how that demonstrates anything about how evolution is taught, was there some other post where you used an example of what you are talking about, even if only anecdotal, that I missed?

A question that could be posed to every poster here about every subject discussed. Quite clearly, both you and I are interested in current topics of the day from politics to science and everything in between. Your 2,000 posts or so under your new name and my thousands of posts seem evidence enough of that. As for this particular issue, as the father of two girls, ages 4 and 6, I am very much interested in science education. When not busy with them, my job or arguing with you, I am usually reading and some of the most fascinating books I have read and often re-read, are those concerning human origins and the growing fossil record of hominids. The idea that at one time there was more than one human species walking around is, to me, endlessly fascinating. We often hear the question posed, "Are we alone in the universe?" As it turns out, we might be alone now but once, right here at home, we had lots of company. As it may turn out however, we apparently killed them all, directly or indirectly. And people say that science is devoid of morality. That seems to be as powerful a moral lesson as any parable I have ever read. The real question is "Have we always been alone?"

I was paraphrasing and should have made that clear rather than to have used quotes. However, I will ask you again to tell me whether you thought "Scientists" as used in the sentence meant one scientist, more than one or most? I took it to mean a reference to the majority of scientists, ie most as the observation would hardly have any relevance if it referred to just a few. At the very least, I think it can be taken as a reference to a significant number of scientists. As for context, Bib has posted many times in this thread and in this discussion has been consistently critical of science and scientists throughout, even going so far as to say that their technology has "never" righted a wrong. I respectfully disagree.

I can't read your mind, just your words bib and those words were: "Scientists are narrowly focused guys who do things because they can, not because they should." Gee, don't know how I could possibly have read that exactly as it was written in the context of a running discussion of science, religion and faith. A running discussion during which you said things like: "So, I take it as accepted, proven scientific fact that we have descended from a lightning strike in the primordial soup. I guess that's settled. Boy, aren't we an arrogant species." "Just because we have a lot of technology, and a lot of people have graduated from man made schools and done man made experiments and gotten man made results does not mean we know everything." "Have those that are firm die hard believers in evolution taken into account that their manipulation of life skewers the process? Yes, we have the technology and the medicine to keep people alive long past the point they shouldn't be." "Than why have we never, in our history, done it?" [in retort to the notion that technology can be used to right wrongs] "...so many of the intellectual, scientific folk are competing to either build on or dispute someone elses theories and precepts, that they have lost site many times of what might be new" "All this scientific process has degenerated into delving into what someone else has done, taking their work and progress and running the same up another couple notches. Hard to find independant thought, anywhere." Reading it all in one place you: 1) charged scientists with arrogance for believing in a certain theory for the origin of life; 2) opined that scientists aren't as smart as they think they are; 3) offered that science perverts, ie "manipulates" the "process" by which I think you were referring to natural selection; 4) charged that technology has never been used for good; 5) wondered that scientists by and large are no longer capable of independent thought and can't see anything new (such as what? creationism dressed up as "Intelligent Design" is hardly new). I understand that you certainly didn't intend to attack anyone, that is not your style, and were more than likely thinking out loud. All I did initially was to point out that one statement you made was worded as a pretty broad generalization. There was no smart alek attack on you, no wise cracks or any of that. OG started that when he jumped in. Apart from your intentions though, your point was pretty clear and often enough repeated that science and scientists are arrogant, not as smart as they think they are, haven't really done us much good and can't think out of the box. All in all, the idea that you were being critical of scientists as having no conscience seems to me to have been very much in context based on what you wrote: "Scientists are narrowly focused guys who do things because they can, not because they should." Rather than debate your ability to express yourself clearly or my ability to understand you, why not get to the substantive point? What were you trying to say about science and scientists that I understood so wrongly?

Go diesel man, they are much, much improved. Double the mileage and they are no more expensive than the models with gasoline engines. VW makes them and Jeep is now selling a Liberty model with a diesel engine. Off the shelf, tried and true technology that is widely available at a reasonable price.