The critical importance of teaching evolution

[Guest 2smart4u]

By the way-I looked it up and every word you quoted refers to the theoretical next step which I already stated as theoretical. You really need to learn about the Uncertainty Principle. Certainty has no place in science-only in unthinking faith.

I suppose you have a bit of evidence for your view? Anything at all? There are two hypotheses here-mine has evidence for it but not yet a complete chain. Yours has nothing whatsoever. When I was a child the state of Arkansas had a famous court case about the teaching of YEC. Your side has had to back off of that because the evidence is too overwhelmingly against a young earth. As evidence mounts, the 'necessary' role of divine intervention has become smaller and smaller. Give it up.

Personally I think the "young earthers" are wacky. There's no question the earth is 4.5 billion years old, give or take and evolution is a proven fact. I don't take the bible literally, many passages are alligorical. There's also no question science has made many advances in uncovering the origins of life.

However, where we split company is your belief in a spontaneous origin to life, that every life form can be traced back to a puddle of soup where serendipity brought together the necessary chemicals to create a cell. Substitute "serendipity" for "God" and I'm on board, I don't believe the millions/billions of life forms can be traced to a single cell without I.D.

Atheists like yourself will continue to beat the drum for science but you'll never disprove God's hand in evolution.

[Guest Guest]

Personally I think the "young earthers" are wacky. There's no question the earth is 4.5 billion years old, give or take and evolution is a proven fact. I don't take the bible literally, many passages are alligorical. There's also no question science has made many advances in uncovering the origins of life.

However, where we split company is your belief in a spontaneous origin to life, that every life form can be traced back to a puddle of soup where serendipity brought together the necessary chemicals to create a cell. Substitute "serendipity" for "God" and I'm on board, I don't believe the millions/billions of life forms can be traced to a single cell without I.D.

Atheists like yourself will continue to beat the drum for science but you'll never disprove God's hand in evolution.

And you'll never provide a shred of evidence for it. There are several ways to approach the matter.

You could ask which field of endeavor generates progress. The answer is science does, theology does not.

You could ask whether it looks like someone did this on purpose. If you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that it looks like this happened by natural processes, not because someone chose to design it like this.

You could ask what your belief system is based on. If you're honest, you'll admit that theology is based on a wish, whereas science is based on evidence.

You won't ask those questions because you're not interested in them. You've made up your mind, such as it is, and you're more interested in berating people who don't agree with you than in thinking clearly.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Personally I think the "young earthers" are wacky. There's no question the earth is 4.5 billion years old, give or take and evolution is a proven fact. I don't take the bible literally, many passages are alligorical. There's also no question science has made many advances in uncovering the origins of life.

You're contradicting yourself.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=95248

You have repeatedly stated that 'organs' have to be the result of design. Seriously-just put your name and the word 'organs' into the Search function at the top of the page. You say it a lot. It isn't quite as funny as the differing heights you've given for yourself, but it is somewhat amusing. Sorry-that isn't accepting evolution as fact.

However, where we split company is your belief in a spontaneous origin to life, that every life form can be traced back to a puddle of soup where serendipity brought together the necessary chemicals to create a cell.

No one believes that. Seriously-did you read the article I posted? No one in the scientific community believes it happened like that. There were intermediate steps and the experiment just proved one of the most important.

Substitute "serendipity" for "God" and I'm on board, I don't believe the millions/billions of life forms can be traced to a single cell without I.D.

There you go again. We know evolution works once you get life. You just contradicted what you said 2 sentences ago! Tracing "millions/billions of life forms" to a single cell is precisely what evolutionary biology does. Do you believe in cars but not tires too?

Atheists like yourself will continue to beat the drum for science but you'll never disprove God's hand in evolution.

You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that you didn't play Scrabble with Osama bin Laden last night. You can only prove that you were doing something else. It is logically impossible to prove that God wasn't involved in evolution-but we're getting really close to proving that it works without him.

Plus-that isn't the point. Science isn't looking to disprove anything. They're trying to figure out how it happened. YOU are the one making a positive statement-that evolution doesn't work without a designer. Now YOU should try to prove it. As I've said to you literally dozens of times-I don't care about what you believe, and if you believed in theistic evolution we wouldn't be having this debate. God has nothing to do with it-you're simply promoting an ignorant (and objectively wrong) worldview.

[Guest 2smart4u]

You're contradicting yourself.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=95248

You have repeatedly stated that 'organs' have to be the result of design. Seriously-just put your name and the word 'organs' into the Search function at the top of the page. You say it a lot. It isn't quite as funny as the differing heights you've given for yourself, but it is somewhat amusing. Sorry-that isn't accepting evolution as fact.

No one believes that. Seriously-did you read the article I posted? No one in the scientific community believes it happened like that. There were intermediate steps and the experiment just proved one of the most important.

There you go again. We know evolution works once you get life. You just contradicted what you said 2 sentences ago! Tracing "millions/billions of life forms" to a single cell is precisely what evolutionary biology does. Do you believe in cars but not tires too?

You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that you didn't play Scrabble with Osama bin Laden last night. You can only prove that you were doing something else. It is logically impossible to prove that God wasn't involved in evolution-but we're getting really close to proving that it works without him.

Plus-that isn't the point. Science isn't looking to disprove anything. They're trying to figure out how it happened. YOU are the one making a positive statement-that evolution doesn't work without a designer. Now YOU should try to prove it. As I've said to you literally dozens of times-I don't care about what you believe, and if you believed in theistic evolution we wouldn't be having this debate. God has nothing to do with it-you're simply promoting an ignorant (and objectively wrong) worldview.

My proof that life/evolution doesn't work without a designer is science's inability to prove it does. BTW, I CAN prove I wasn't playing Scrabble last night, I have 4 witnesses. Your Kool-Aid logic is flawed

[Guest Guest]

Personally I think the "young earthers" are wacky. There's no question the earth is 4.5 billion years old, give or take and evolution is a proven fact. I don't take the bible literally, many passages are alligorical. There's also no question science has made many advances in uncovering the origins of life.

However, where we split company is your belief in a spontaneous origin to life, that every life form can be traced back to a puddle of soup where serendipity brought together the necessary chemicals to create a cell. Substitute "serendipity" for "God" and I'm on board, I don't believe the millions/billions of life forms can be traced to a single cell without I.D.

Atheists like yourself will continue to beat the drum for science but you'll never disprove God's hand in evolution.

People once made arguments like that about evolution. Now you're saying it's a fact but you believe in God anyway.

People once made arguments like that about the earth revolving around the sun. Then science proved it and people believed in God anyway.

When science constructs cells from chemicals, will you stop believing in God?

Why are you such a snot about scientific research? Does it threaten you?

[Guest Guest]

My proof that life/evolution doesn't work without a designer is science's inability to prove it does. BTW, I CAN prove I wasn't playing Scrabble last night, I have 4 witnesses. Your Kool-Aid logic is flawed

So how did the designer get there?

[Guest *Autonomous*]

My proof that life/evolution doesn't work without a designer is science's inability to prove it does.

OK-prove that a designer exists. You're making a default assumption there. Also, not x does not equal y.

BTW, I CAN prove I wasn't playing Scrabble last night, I have 4 witnesses. Your Kool-Aid logic is flawed

Nope-you've only proved that you were doing something else. Exactly like I said.

Want to know why you're thought of as stupid? You just ignored everything I said in favor of juvenile insults.

[Guest Guest]

My proof that life/evolution doesn't work without a designer is science's inability to prove it does. BTW, I CAN prove I wasn't playing Scrabble last night, I have 4 witnesses. Your Kool-Aid logic is flawed

What an idiot! That's not proof of a designer. You just choose to believe it. No wonder everything is so simple for this idiot. He thinks that if he believes it, that makes it true.

[Guest Guest]

OK-prove that a designer exists. You're making a default assumption there. Also, not x does not equal y.

Nope-you've only proved that you were doing something else. Exactly like I said.

Want to know why you're thought of as stupid? You just ignored everything I said in favor of juvenile insults.

If he proved he was doing something else, then that's proof in itself, idiot.

[Guest Guest]

If he proved he was doing something else, then that's proof in itself, idiot.

He hasn't proved anything because no one knows who he is or who his "witnesses" are.

Second, no one is interested in where 2dim was a couple nights ago. Science deals with bigger issues.

[Guest Guest]

He hasn't proved anything because no one knows who he is or who his "witnesses" are.

Second, no one is interested in where 2dim was a couple nights ago. Science deals with bigger issues.

I feel like I'm talking to zombies in the twilight zone. 4 witnesses in a court of law would constitute proof of what he was doing and not doing. What is it with you atheists, are you all intellectually challenged?

[Guest Guest]

I feel like I'm talking to zombies in the twilight zone. 4 witnesses in a court of law would constitute proof of what he was doing and not doing. What is it with you atheists, are you all intellectually challenged?

Yes they would if the jury believed them, but this isn't a court of law, moron. A claim that four anonymous witnesses saw the whole thing is not admissible. In a court of law you have to give your name and address. You can't get on the witness stand with a bag over your head.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

I feel like I'm talking to zombies in the twilight zone. 4 witnesses in a court of law would constitute proof of what he was doing and not doing. What is it with you atheists, are you all intellectually challenged?

Nope. The point is that 2dim challenged me to prove a negative by proving that God wasn't involved in evolution. However, it is logically impossible to prove a negative. Even when we someday create life in the lab it won't prove that-there could be multiple ways for life to begin. You have to look at the secondary discussion in the context of the primary discussion.

Speaking of intellectually challenged-you do realize you are defending someone who contradicts himself in his own posts, right?

[Guest Paul]

The point has gotten lost in the distractions. It has nothing to do with whether someone who calls himself 2smart4u was playing Scrabble or can prove it (which he could only do by producing witnesses, not by claiming he has them), or even with religion. The point is that young earth creationism is indefensible and should not be promoted by any school teacher under any circumstances.

[Guest 2smart4u]

The point has gotten lost in the distractions. It has nothing to do with whether someone who calls himself 2smart4u was playing Scrabble or can prove it (which he could only do by producing witnesses, not by claiming he has them), or even with religion. The point is that young earth creationism is indefensible and should not be promoted by any school teacher under any circumstances.

Didn't we beat this horse to death? I place the "young earthers" in the same catagory with the loony left Kool-Aiders.

BTW, on that scrabble thing, I was speaking hypothetically, DUH.

[Guest Paul]

Didn't we beat this horse to death? I place the "young earthers" in the same catagory with the loony left Kool-Aiders.

BTW, on that scrabble thing, I was speaking hypothetically, DUH.

No, we didn't beat it to death. If the horse was dead, Paszkiewicz wouldn't be continuing to spout this nonsense and still teach at KHS.

I may not be able to do anything more about him but I will try. Mine may be a minority view, but my opinion is that no one whose views are so anti-scientific and so profoundly ignorant should be teaching in our schools. I can't force people to get upset but I will continue beating this drum to make the point that the integrity of our educational system is a concern of the highest order. I had hoped that he might have learned something but he has not. As a taxpayer and a person who values education, I intend to continue making this case against any teacher who mocks the very system that puts bread on his table.

[Guest Lincoln Logger]

No, we didn't beat it to death. If the horse was dead, Paszkiewicz wouldn't be continuing to spout this nonsense and still teach at KHS.

I may not be able to do anything more about him but I will try. Mine may be a minority view, but my opinion is that no one whose views are so anti-scientific and so profoundly ignorant should be teaching in our schools. I can't force people to get upset but I will continue beating this drum to make the point that the integrity of our educational system is a concern of the highest order. I had hoped that he might have learned something but he has not. As a taxpayer and a person who values education, I intend to continue making this case against any teacher who mocks the very system that puts bread on his table.

It still baffles me how you can post here and say that you do not have a vendetta against Paszkiewicz. With everything else going on this world, such as unemployment, the economy, war skirmishes throughout Asia, this is your windmill that you choose to attack? It appears you are beating something, but it sounds nothing like a drum. And if this is your case to go after him, then maybe its time you hang up your license. You are a mock the legal system that you are supposedly defend.

[Guest Paul]

It still baffles me how you can post here and say that you do not have a vendetta against Paszkiewicz. With everything else going on this world, such as unemployment, the economy, war skirmishes throughout Asia, this is your windmill that you choose to attack? It appears you are beating something, but it sounds nothing like a drum. And if this is your case to go after him, then maybe its time you hang up your license. You are a mock the legal system that you are supposedly defend.

I have a specific complaint, specifically the continued attempt to undermine science education. I would make this complaint regardless of the person undermining the curriculum. Therefore, your charge of a vendetta is not well taken. If you do not understand my concern, it is not because I haven't made it clear.

[WilliamK]

It still baffles me how you can post here and say that you do not have a vendetta against Paszkiewicz.

If Paszkiewicz wasn't continuing his bad behavior, there'd be no "vendetta".

With everything else going on this world, such as unemployment, the economy, war skirmishes throughout Asia, this is your windmill that you choose to attack?

Ah, yes. The old "someone else's actions are worse, therefore I should not be held accountable for my own" defense. Real class there, LL. Do you think the police should stop arresting burglars because there are still murders to solve? I suspect that the answer to that depends entirely on whether you are a burglar, as you're obviously not above using exactly that kind of excuse.

As to why Paul would be so keenly interested in Paszkiewicz' misdeeds, does it not occur to you that a parent might have a greater than average concern for issues that affect the quality of public education? Does it not occur to you that someone who has been personally affected by the wrong doings of a particular person might have a heightened concern for the continued bad behavior of that same person? Does it not occur to you that someone who strongly values science and reason might tend to have greater than average concern for attacks on same? Does it not occur to you that ALL of these factors apply here? Is acknowledging those things just too to honest and decent for your character to allow?

It appears you are beating something, but it sounds nothing like a drum. And if this is your case to go after him, then maybe its time you hang up your license. You are a mock the legal system that you are supposedly defend.

That's a low blow, LL, and completely without merit. In his pursuit of Paszkiewicz, Paul has done nothing unethical, illegal, or that in any way hinders the proper functioning of our legal system.

[Guest guest]

Are there limits on what clubs a school will recognize as school clubs? If so, what should be the criteria?

Obviously (I hope), the school would not sanction or condone a club supporting the goals of NAMBLA, since that organization promotes illegal activity. I’m quite certain that a club dedicated to the reading of erotic popular magazines like Playboy would meet with disapproval, too – but on what grounds? The activity is legal. What if the seniors formed a club whose mission was to take every student to a strip club on his or her eighteenth birthday, when it’s legal?

I understand that a former principal put the lid on an attempt by some students to form a gay-straight alliance club. He had no business doing that. The club is completely legal, and it furthers an important educational mission of promoting tolerance.

What about a club encouraging young people to smoke cigarettes? What about a cigar club? A wine advocates’ club? A beer-guzzlers’ club? Does it make a difference if each of these clubs cautions that students should engage in the activity of interest only after they reach legal age? What, then, about a club in which the students discuss how to have great sex? How about a school club for education in tantric practices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra#Sexual_rites )?

Each scenario offers its own set of considerations. Tantra in particular would offer the school system a fascinating set of tough choices because it’s a religion, just like Christianity is. And like Christianity, it teaches its view of sexual practices. Withholding recognition and equal treatment would immediately raise First Amendment issues that the school could not overcome.

What about a club dedicated to reviving the ancient notion of spontaneous generation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation ) or a geocentric universe (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model ). What about a KKK club at Kearny High? A Nazi youth club? How about a “trenchcoat mafia” club? How about a club dedicated to discussing strategies for skipping school? A pro-bulimia club? How ignorant, twisted or bigoted does a school club have to be before the school properly refuses to recognize it?

My view is that a recognized school club should be consistent with the school’s educational purposes – not the biases of its administrators but the educational purposes of the school system. Not every club need promote an educational purpose, but at the very least, it should not undermine what the school is there to achieve. For that reason, a Christian club is appropriate, but if it seeks to promote young-earth creationism, it crosses the line. I would not refuse to recognize the club over that unless it became the club’s main focus, but I do not believe that the school should in any way encourage it. In fact, the school’s educational mission is to discourage young-earth creationism, because it is contrary to the established science curriculum. This is no different than a “geocentric solar system” club. Thus, the school would withhold recognition based on the legitimate secular purpose of promoting the school’s educational mission. That includes withholding any supportive funds, such as providing a bus to travel to the “creation museum.”

I don’t think that’s an unfair rule. On the contrary, it is a necessary one. If that isn’t the standard, then what is?

There is the Equal Access Act that states if the school allows one non-curriculum club, such as a ski club or the like, then that same school must allow all non-curriculum clubs as long as students are not put in harms way. The clubs are to be run by the students with a faculty advisor. All clubs are to be given the use of supplies and the p.a system.

For being a lawyer, why didn't you know about this?

[Guest Paul]

There is the Equal Access Act that states if the school allows one non-curriculum club, such as a ski club or the like, then that same school must allow all non-curriculum clubs as long as students are not put in harms way. The clubs are to be run by the students with a faculty advisor. All clubs are to be given the use of supplies and the p.a system.

For being a lawyer, why didn't you know about this?

There's no call for the arrogance. I do know about it. It doesn't mean that a school system, charged with educating its students, must provide access to harmful activities. The Creation Museum is undermining the science curriculum. It is directly at odds with the school system's central mission and purpose. I think the school district has a right and an obligation to say "you're not using our bus to tell our kids that our science teachers don't know what they're talking about." That is a secular purpose for denying access, as contrasted with using the bus to visit a church. There's no affirmative secular purpose for denying the latter. As far as I know, this specific point of law has not been tested.

[Guest 2smart4u]

There's no call for the arrogance. I do know about it. It doesn't mean that a school system, charged with educating its students, must provide access to harmful activities. The Creation Museum is undermining the science curriculum. It is directly at odds with the school system's central mission and purpose. I think the school district has a right and an obligation to say "you're not using our bus to tell our kids that our science teachers don't know what they're talking about." That is a secular purpose for denying access, as contrasted with using the bus to visit a church. There's no affirmative secular purpose for denying the latter. As far as I know, this specific point of law has not been tested.

I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Paul. A school sponsored bus trip to a "Creation Museum" is akin to a bus trip to the Land of Oz. It might be entertaining but it certainly has no educational value and the school should not be in the business of entertaining it's students with it's tight budgets.

[Guest Paul]

Matthew will be hosting this week's segment of Equal Time for Freethought, to be broadcast this coming Sunday, June 7, at 6:30 p.m. on WBAI radio, 99.5 FM. His current intention is to discuss this issue, on which there has been much activity this week, and to open the phone lines for calls.

This will be the third program he has hosted for ETF. The others (shows 297 and 301) can be heard at www.equaltimeforfreethought.org , where the upcoming program will also be posted shortly after it is aired. Just click on the "Recent Episodes" box on the right or search the episode number.

[Guest guest]

There's no call for the arrogance. I do know about it. It doesn't mean that a school system, charged with educating its students, must provide access to harmful activities. The Creation Museum is undermining the science curriculum. It is directly at odds with the school system's central mission and purpose. I think the school district has a right and an obligation to say "you're not using our bus to tell our kids that our science teachers don't know what they're talking about." That is a secular purpose for denying access, as contrasted with using the bus to visit a church. There's no affirmative secular purpose for denying the latter. As far as I know, this specific point of law has not been tested.

How is this club a harmful activity? Do you know that this club has the most members? Obviously this is something the students want. I suggest you read up again sir on the EAA. You may learn a thing or two.

[Guest Guest]

How is this club a harmful activity? Do you know that this club has the most members? Obviously this is something the students want. I suggest you read up again sir on the EAA. You may learn a thing or two.

You were told what the problem was and you don't want to hear it. This afternoon, Kearny taxpayers are going to subsidize a 1,500 bus trip for approximately twenty Kearny High students who want to pretend that fairy tales are history, egged on by a numbskull history teacher who should have been fired two years ago. I'm not talking about God creating the earth. Responsible people believe that. I'm talking about what's being promoted at the Creation Museum, which is completely disproved by science. Dinosaurs and humans did not live at the same time. There's even an exhibit of a dinosaur with a saddle and the little kids can ride it. News flash: dinosaurs wouldn't be domestic animals even if they had lived at the same time as people. You try riding a crocodile. It's like Paszkiewicz is going out of his way to promote the stupidest thing he can think of --- except he really believes it!

As for the club's popularity, the German people elected Hitler and the American people stood behind slavery. Plenty of kids like to get drunk and act stupid. So what? Just because a lot of people want to be ignorant doesn't mean the taxpayers should pay for it.