[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Well since the phrases "geological evolution" or "cosmological evolution" are nothing but meaningless pseudointellectual doublespeak, my only guess is that you're talking about plain old geology and cosmology, but that guess leads to you having said something that is totally and obviously untrue, that the big bang and related theories are in any way or setting better understood than the theory of evolution. I even googled "geological and cosmological evolution" and the first result confirms my experience: "The nature and scientific measurement of geological and cosmological time are among the most misunderstood and difficult to teach concepts in all of K-12 science education."

The report, called Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States, was written by Lawrence S. Lerner, professor emeritus of physics and astronomy at California State University, Long Beach. Lerner concludes that, on the whole, most states do a reasonable job of addressing the evolution of Earth and the solar system, although most ignore the rest of the universe and with it the cosmological knowledge gained over the past century. The real sins of omission were in the biology standards.

The criteria focus on the three “historical” sciences: biology, geology and cosmology. They include:
Use — or lack — of the word “evolution” in the standards.

Treatment of biological evolution.
Treatment of human evolution (i.e. whether biological evolution is tied to our own species).
Treatment of geological evolution (i.e., plate tectonics and the history the Earth).
Treatment of cosmology (i.e., evolution of stars, the Big Bang theory, stellar events).
Teaching connections among the different historical sciences.
Use of creationist jargon to cast doubt on evolutionary theory.
Requirement for a disclaimer if evolution is taught.

It seems part of the grade is whether or not the "E" word is even mentioned with regard to cosmology, geology, and biology. Apparently, the standards adopted in this report for grading science standards gauge the lack of meaningless pseudointellectual doublespeak.

Articles on Cosmological Evolution as so named;

http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles...ion_index.html

http://www.originoflife.org.uk/beginners4.htm

http://www.meta-library.net/events/aus101-body.html

http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/metat...ype_astro.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509328

I've copy-pasted half of page one having googled the term; Cosmological Evolution. It goes on to page 2, and page 3 all articles discussing, affirming, describing, and referring to the evolution of the cosmos.

Articles on Geological Evolution as so named;

http://www.handprint.com/PS/GEO/geoevo.html

http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/vageol/vahist/index.html

http://boris.vulcanoetna.com/ETNA_evol2.html

http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/G_0077.htm

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topi...ion/index.html

So I now assume that you do not in fact mean plain old geology and cosmology, which puts us back to square one, with you talking nonsense. So I ask again, what are you talking about?

Well, you're not really good at assuming first of all. Secondly, I in fact meant Geological evolution, Cosmological Evolution, and Biological Evolution as detailed by my having mentioned attempts at standardizing science education. I mentioned them in context of a report trying to gauge scientific standards and added that the standards need improvement. Since the phrases "geological evolution" or "cosmological evolution" are nothing but meaningless pseudointellectual doublespeak according to you, yet are used rather commonly by those in the scientific community, you have to wonder if the problem is Creationists or if the problem is the scientists themselves using meaningless pseudointellectual doublespeak. Tell ya what, if you have a problem you're welcome to take it up with them. Otherwise, we are in fact back to square one with you acting disingenuously stupid.

Although, in your defense I'm beginning to wonder if it was disingenuous stupidity after all.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee

hi ebuddy
i need to find the right words to express myself better, so sorry if i fail.

It was your use of the word "ego" to express the below that I took issue with and you having singled out Christianity.

1) a christian god:
god created me for a reason. my life is to be the best i can be. god is a 1 on 1 experience.

Some feel this way. Some feel "once saved always saved" and at times may not concern themselves with how they conduct their lives. Some feel that God facilitated an environment where matter could develop perpetually, yet remains distant from it. Some continuously struggle to be better than they are today. For many, religion holds with it accountability for the responsibility of your "purposeful" existence. What is the purpose and are you living up to it? My question to you was, Could this pressure lead to a preference for #2?

2) a secular view:
my life is just an iteration of the very long chain of life as well as evolution. god is not a personal experience. it's a transcendent experience. like, i am just a nod on the internet.

This secular view shares much with the Christian view. Christians believe they are infinitely small and God or "creation" infinitely large. Christians acknowledge that they are a mere blip on the radar screen of humanity. I couldn't care less if I had evolved from a primate. I don't need a god or scriptures to tell me how I'm vastly superior and more resourceful than the primate. I also realize that with this endowment of self awareness comes the responsibility of stewardship. There are a great many atheists (two of which I'm close to) who believe their life has purpose and they too believe they are to be good stewards of their environment, loved ones, and belongings. While the Christian view may detail a purposeful existence, I could imagine a great many would argue with you that they still believe their life has purpose regardless of a belief in a god. I saw your post as an oversimplification of the discussion. Really, It seemed to be crafted as a dig.

one with the universe is like since we are all made of atoms, then we are all the same.

Is this what you believe?

accountability to whom? what god?

I suppose you'd enter religion ________. Christians are not the only religion that has tried to challenge the teaching of evolution nor is "purpose" and "meaning" exclusive to Christianity. They are the most prominent in numbers and resource and as such are the loudest, but they are by no means the only people that have expressed problems with the theory of evolution. Superstition, dogma, greed, and deceipt is also not exclusive to Christianity nor religion in general.

i would say there is a 1 on 1 relationship (ie god knows me by name)

So you believe in Friday the 13th also and other superstitions?

let me know if i made sense...i want to be clear...or find out i am wrong in my thinking

It is not for me to tell you that you are wrong in your thinking. I certainly wouldn't be qualified to make this assessment. However, I did feel the post was crafted as a dig in its oversimplification of the subject matter.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It seems part of the grade is whether or not the "E" word is even mentioned with regard to cosmology, geology, and biology. Apparently, the standards adopted in this report for grading science standards gauge the lack of meaningless pseudointellectual doublespeak.

Yes, and you'll notice if you actually go read that report, that he takes quite a bit of time to ridicule states who use the "E" word liberally when referring to cosmology while refusing to use it referring to biology. Meaningless pseudointellectual doublespeak is counted against them. Incidentally, teaching "cosmology" without the superfluous and misleading addendum is counted for them.

Articles on Cosmological Evolution as so named;

Wow. You can find meaningless pseudointellectual doublspeak out on the internet. Bravo.

Look, I never said that doublespeak was foreign to scientists, especially when discussing their field to laymen on the internet, but that doesn't mean the terms have any useful meaning. That's why I asked politely what you were talking about when you used them.

Now that you're able to say you mean geology and cosmology, I will also ask what makes you think that cosmology is better understood or taught than (biological) evolution. Are you just trying to say that in some states evolution teaching is so bad that even cosmology, a field that's not even agreed upon among theoretical physicists, is taught better there?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Yes, and you'll notice if you actually go read that report, that he takes quite a bit of time to ridicule states who use the "E" word liberally when referring to cosmology while refusing to use it referring to biology.

Well, it seems odd that a summary of the report includes the meaningless pseudointellectual doublespeak you claim the report rails against. Again, for clarity;

Treatment of biological evolution.
Treatment of human evolution (i.e. whether biological evolution is tied to our own species).
Treatment of geological evolution (i.e., plate tectonics and the history the Earth).
Treatment of cosmology (i.e., evolution of stars, the Big Bang theory, stellar events).

Wow. You can find meaningless pseudointellectual doublspeak out on the internet. Bravo.

Who are you again, Dr. what? I find it interesting that in no other discussions do I find this degree of elitism. If you've read the report, cite examples of Lerner critiquing those for using the word "evolution" incorrectly.

From an excerpt of Lawrence Lerner himself entitled; Teaching Evolution, State by State;

The standards may include many of the central principles of evolution--usually briefly--but the word evolution is carefully avoided. Inaccurate and misleading euphemisms such as "change over time" are used instead of the "E-word."

Alabama, Florida, Illinois, and Mississippi are among the fifteen states that do this to a greater or lesser extent.

Biological evolution is simply ignored. Geological evolution *note his use of the meaningless pseudointellectual phrases you oppose, but Lerner supports. , the history of the solar system, and cosmology may be treated to some extent, often even employing the word evolution. Fossils are sometimes mentioned, but only in the context of geology, not biology.
*here is the most critical of his analysis;

Only four states (Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and West Virginia) ignore evolution completely but only ten have a completely satisfactory coverage of the subject.

I'm left to believe you have one of the below;
- a severe reading comprehension problem.
- a degree of zeal that would lead to blatant dishonesty.
- an act of disingenuous stupidity for nothing more than to be argumentative.
- an alarming inferiority complex.

Regardless, I don't have time for elitists and argumentative evo-zealots.

Look, I never said that doublespeak was foreign to scientists, especially when discussing their field to laymen on the internet, but that doesn't mean the terms have any useful meaning. That's why I asked politely what you were talking about when you used them.

... but doublespeak is apparently foreign to you??? BTW; most readers here are laymen Einstein.

To clarify; you're familiar with what they are and were acting disingenuously stupid as usual, meaning the question was not asked politely.

Now that you're able to say you mean geology and cosmology, I will also ask what makes you think that cosmology is better understood or taught than (biological) evolution. Are you just trying to say that in some states evolution teaching is so bad that even cosmology, a field that's not even agreed upon among theoretical physicists, is taught better there?

Cosmological evolution and Geological evolution are discussed in the report that you supposedly read. That was the report I was referring to that claims of the three, Biological evolution is the most wanting. If you have questions as to the findings and conclusions in that report, politely ask Lerner. i.e. don't ask what he's talking about, be more specific.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Well, it seems odd that a summary of the report includes the meaningless pseudointellectual doublespeak you claim the report rails against. Again, for clarity;

Treatment of biological evolution.
Treatment of human evolution (i.e. whether biological evolution is tied to our own species).
Treatment of geological evolution (i.e., plate tectonics and the history the Earth).
Treatment of cosmology (i.e., evolution of stars, the Big Bang theory, stellar events).

You must be reading a different report than I am, because that's not in my version. But I will point out that if that is a quote from something, it illustrates the meaninglessness of the terms in question, because even in the summary they have to be explicitly explained in parentheses. That explanation is all I was asking of you at first (at a time before you had ever mentioned this report or Lawrence Lerner, by the way), rather than to put words in your mouth.

To clarify; you're familiar with what they are and were acting disingenuously stupid as usual, meaning the question was not asked politely.

No, I'm not familiar with what they are, because what they are is entirely dependent on the user's intent. That's what doublespeak is, it's meaningless until explained. That's why I asked you for clarification, and that's why Lerner repeatedly gives clarification in his documents when he uses those words.

Cosmological evolution and Geological evolution are discussed in the report that you supposedly read. That was the report I was referring to that claims of the three, Biological evolution is the most wanting. If you have questions as to the findings and conclusions in that report, politely ask Lerner. i.e. don't ask what he's talking about, be more specific.

It seems from the above that you are talking about a different report than the one google found for me, so I'll defer answering this until you provide a link. In my version, it only judges the teaching of cosmology on the scores for 3 states, all of them poor, and draws no overall conclusions about the teaching of cosmology, only evolution.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

You must be reading a different report than I am, because that's not in my version. But I will point out that if that is a quote from something, it illustrates the meaninglessness of the terms in question, because even in the summary they have to be explicitly explained in parentheses. That explanation is all I was asking of you at first (at a time before you had ever mentioned this report or Lawrence Lerner, by the way), rather than to put words in your mouth.

I gave you the name and author of the report. If you went and found a different report then I guess you found a different report, but still haven't cited for me where even the wrong report critiques the use of the word evolution. What I'm seeing is a critique for not using the word evolution as it relates to Geology, Cosmology, and Biology. BTW; Human evolution also carries an additional explanation in parenthesis. So... human evolution begs for clarification also??? You're welcome to keep trying. If you happen across something that can facilitate an actual conversation, I may even bless you with a response.

In the meantime, it might be a good idea to make sure the material you're referencing is relevant. In this case, go find the correct report instead of trying to tell me why I'm wrong using a different report. Thanx.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yeah, ok. You claimed that evolution in teaching was misunderstood, because cosmology among other things was taking more than its fair share of understanding. That sounded absolutely false to me, so I asked you to clarify. You then mentioned a report which I found here, and you quoted a few things that aren't in it, and now you seem to think it supports your claim. But it doesn't, and your claim is still false.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Yeah, ok. You claimed that evolution in teaching was misunderstood, because cosmology among other things was taking more than its fair share of understanding. That sounded absolutely false to me, so I asked you to clarify. You then mentioned a report which I found here, and you quoted a few things that aren't in it, and now you seem to think it supports your claim. But it doesn't, and your claim is still false.

http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/dec00...on_grades.html

Treatment of biological evolution.
Treatment of human evolution (i.e. whether biological evolution is tied to our own species).
Treatment of geological evolution (i.e., plate tectonics and the history the Earth).
Treatment of cosmology (i.e., evolution of stars, the Big Bang theory, stellar events).
Teaching connections among the different historical sciences.
Use of creationist jargon to cast doubt on evolutionary theory.
Requirement for a disclaimer if evolution is taught.

Lerner concludes that, on the whole, most states do a reasonable job of addressing the evolution of Earth and the solar system, although most ignore the rest of the universe and with it the cosmological knowledge gained over the past century. The real sins of omission were in the biology standards.

So, instead of asking me to clarify why I mentioned that Cosmological Evolution was among the better understood (point taken, I easily would've apologized with the clarification; "how they address evolution instead of understand evolution), you asked me what the terms meant in habitual disingenuous stupidity.

My claim rests supported by the report I cited and you've not yet given a link to a refutation of my point. Like I said, if you'd like to challenge a claim, challenge the claim.

I hope you realize now how inefficient disingenuous stupidity is.

[ironknee]

ebuddy

i am more confused at your replies than ever

1) ego: god created man in his own image...now that's ego!

2) you make some good points but they lead to maybe a minority of people (christians who believe in evolution)

but even here, there is no question that christians must believe that jesus is the only way to heaven. that's an ego thing that god knows my name. conversely, evolution does not need a creator god, the ego shrinks.

3) ok christians are not the only ones oppose evolution, who else besides judaism and muslims. together with christianity, it's 3 religions who believe the same god with different names.

4) you keep using responsibility. does that mean one is not responsible before one is "enlightened" i don't understand.

5) a dig at christianity? sure. the belief system is closed while evolution is open ended. 6,000 years vs millions of years.

6) then you compared evolution to superstition...to me believing in an invisible (male) god who lives in the clouds is superstition.

7) atheists, jews white, black...we all want to think there is a reason for us to be...that is a human need.

8) ebuddy what do u believe? 1 from column A and one from column B?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It was your use of the word "ego" to express the below that I took issue with and you having singled out Christianity.



Some feel this way. Some feel "once saved always saved" and at times may not concern themselves with how they conduct their lives. Some feel that God facilitated an environment where matter could develop perpetually, yet remains distant from it. Some continuously struggle to be better than they are today. For many, religion holds with it accountability for the responsibility of your "purposeful" existence. What is the purpose and are you living up to it? My question to you was, Could this pressure lead to a preference for #2?



This secular view shares much with the Christian view. Christians believe they are infinitely small and God or "creation" infinitely large. Christians acknowledge that they are a mere blip on the radar screen of humanity. I couldn't care less if I had evolved from a primate. I don't need a god or scriptures to tell me how I'm vastly superior and more resourceful than the primate. I also realize that with this endowment of self awareness comes the responsibility of stewardship. There are a great many atheists (two of which I'm close to) who believe their life has purpose and they too believe they are to be good stewards of their environment, loved ones, and belongings. While the Christian view may detail a purposeful existence, I could imagine a great many would argue with you that they still believe their life has purpose regardless of a belief in a god. I saw your post as an oversimplification of the discussion. Really, It seemed to be crafted as a dig.


Is this what you believe?


I suppose you'd enter religion ________. Christians are not the only religion that has tried to challenge the teaching of evolution nor is "purpose" and "meaning" exclusive to Christianity. They are the most prominent in numbers and resource and as such are the loudest, but they are by no means the only people that have expressed problems with the theory of evolution. Superstition, dogma, greed, and deceipt is also not exclusive to Christianity nor religion in general.


So you believe in Friday the 13th also and other superstitions?



It is not for me to tell you that you are wrong in your thinking. I certainly wouldn't be qualified to make this assessment. However, I did feel the post was crafted as a dig in its oversimplification of the subject matter.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee

ebuddy

i am more confused at your replies than ever

1) ego: god created man in his own image...now that's ego!

Why is that ego? You seem to know very little of faith, particularly the Christian faith. In fact, much of Scripture is spent railing against those who think highly of themselves and instead emphasizes humility and servanthood;

Matthew 18:2-4; 2. He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 6:29; if someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.

Hardly the egomaniacal religion you're trying to suppose it is. I suppose it would've been more humble had Jesus said we should be more like the pygmy chimp.

2) you make some good points but they lead to maybe a minority of people (christians who believe in evolution)

Is evolution something to be believed in or learned? Now I'm confused. Is evolution a religion to you? You might know that Christians generally subscribe to most of the suppositions of modern science and only take issue with minute details of the theory of evolution.

but even here, there is no question that christians must believe that jesus is the only way to heaven.

Actually, the largest Christian demonination in the world has laid out an exception for those who couldn't know Jesus' name. Again, you're really oversimplifying a subject matter you seem to know very little about.

that's an ego thing that god knows my name.

Is it really? Think about that for a minute. My father knows my name and most of the people I work with know who I am, is this also an ego thing? Is it a surprise to you that a Christian would believe God knows His Creation??? A Christian would also then believe that God knows everything about the pygmy chimp, I don't see how this is supposed to bloat my ego.

conversely, evolution does not need a creator god, the ego shrinks.

Are you sure about that? You must not read much from those who defend it. I think ego is of utmost concern with them. In short, you have absolutely no foundation for this claim.

3) ok christians are not the only ones oppose evolution, who else besides judaism and muslims. together with christianity, it's 3 religions who believe the same god with different names.

Same god with different names? I disagree, but that's an entirely different conversation. While it is true that opposition to evolution comes generally from those of faith, there are a great many of faith working with evolution today. Your supposition would seem to indicate that an atheist or agnostic must subscribe to all aspects of evolution while those of faith must avoid all science. Are you saying that atheists and agnostics (who also comprise the majority of those critical of Christianity) must subscribe to evolution? Using your reasoning here, Is the interest in Evolution founded simply on distaste for religion?

4) you keep using responsibility. does that mean one is not responsible before one is "enlightened" i don't understand.

You've forgotten the example I've given of my atheist friends who believe their lives are very purposeful.

5) a dig at christianity? sure. the belief system is closed while evolution is open ended. 6,000 years vs millions of years.

Why would you say a religion you know nothing about is closed? This makes you seem kind of closed to be honest with you. There is no law that you must reject science to be a Christian. There is no law that you must believe the earth was created exactly 6,000 years ago to be a Christian. Arguably the most influential scientists of history were deists and most of Christian faith. You knew this right?

6) then you compared evolution to superstition...

I never compared evolution to superstition. Not once. You mentioned something about "oneness with the Universe". I asked you what this even means and you said something to the affect of: "we're all atoms, we're one with the Universe". I then asked if you believed in Friday the 13th.

to me believing in an invisible (male) god who lives in the clouds is superstition.

See my posts above, use command +F and type "disingenuous stupidity". Thanx.

By the way, is your interest in evolution a taste for science or distaste for Christianity? What can you tell me about evolution?

7) atheists, jews white, black...we all want to think there is a reason for us to be...that is a human need.

Why do you say this? You've not meant anyone who cares nothing about thier reason for "being"? I have. This may be a need for you and for most humans, but not all of us.

8) ebuddy what do u believe? 1 from column A and one from column B?

You've not laid out any columns here.

I believe in God, read the Bible often, and I am extremely interested in science and technology. I am a telephony engineer and find the complexity of organisms fascinating. I do not believe everything I read and I save my Biblical questions and challenges for clergy and scientific questions and challenges for here or for pleasure study elsewhere. I believe my life has purpose just as my atheist and agnostic friends, but I do not believe my purpose is to make you think like me. I believe enlightenment is the acknowledgement of diversity. This acknowledgement includes tolerance for those who think differently than you and that these differences do not qualify you to insult others.

I believe deceipt, ego, greed, desire for notariety, and dogma is a human condition not exclusive to those of faith. I believe too many say they "believe" something, but their interest is motivated too often not by genuine interest in the subject matter, but by an antithetical position to something else. I believe your post was perhaps the best example yet of ego run amuck.


What do you believe?

[ironknee]

ebuddy...no offense but either you are putting me on or i just don't get you.

i'm getting off this ride but i will continue our dialogue with 1 (one) thing at a time and if the posts don't end up 10 pages long for each.

now go pray to your god

[ebuddy]

One prayer has already been answered, it seems you've been silenced. Must've been my having asked you what you know about evolution.


I forgot to edit my last reply to include; "goodbye ironknee".

[ironknee]

no you just seem too strange. you must have been joking cause you make no sense except saying there are many ways to see something...ie no point...ask me without being wierd and i will answer

[ironknee]

btw as you put it, one prayer has been answered, is an example of god hears ya buddy and he's there to help spite ironknee...can you see this?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

One prayer has already been answered, it seems you've been silenced. Must've been my having asked you what you know about evolution.


I forgot to edit my last reply to include; "goodbye ironknee".

Oh, no
You say goodbye and I say hello
Hello, hello
I don't know why you say goodbye
I say hello
Hello, hello
I don't know why you say goodbye
I say hello
hello, hello
I don't know why you say goodbye I say hello
Hello

Hela, heba helloa
Hela, heba helloa

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/dec00...on_grades.html

Hang on a second. Merely by mentioning "geological and cosmological evolution," you had expected me to have recognized it as a reference to not only Lawrence Lerner's report but this David Applegate's story about it? How did you expect anyone to make that connection? I'm really curious.

The real sins of omission were in the biology standards.

That is Applegate's take, not Lerner's, but even so the way I read it is that slighting cosmology in the classroom is not as great a "sin" as slighting (biological) evolution, rather than implying that cosmology is not being slighted. Especially since he had just finished saying that cosmology was in fact being slighted.

So, instead of asking me to clarify why I mentioned that Cosmological Evolution was among the better understood...you asked me what the terms meant

Yes, I asked for clarification on the inherently ambiguous terms before concluding you had said something completely idiotic. How foolish of me.

(point taken, I easily would've apologized with the clarification; "how they address evolution instead of understand evolution)

Ok, here's another chance at the same question: what are you talking about? Your initial statement was this
"Geological and Cosmological evolution seem to enjoy the lions share of understanding while biological evolution is lacking."
What you just said is eerily meaningless WRT that. I'm starting to think ironknee is on to something. Are you some kind of practical joke?

My claim rests supported by the report I cited and you've not yet given a link to a refutation of my point. Like I said, if you'd like to challenge a claim, challenge the claim.

You just gave a quote that disproves your statement:
"Lerner concludes that ... most ignore the rest of the universe and with it the cosmological knowledge gained over the past century."
If you think that sentiment supports cosmological evolution enjoying the lion's share, you've got deeper problems than can be addressed here.

I hope you realize now how inefficient disingenuous stupidity is.

Not that I think you're humble enough to take advice from anyone, but maybe some day you can realize how ineffective it is to accuse everyone of being disingenuous.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This secular view shares much with the Christian view. Christians believe they are infinitely small and God or "creation" infinitely large. Christians acknowledge that they are a mere blip on the radar screen of humanity. I couldn't care less if I had evolved from a primate. I don't need a god or scriptures to tell me how I'm vastly superior and more resourceful than the primate. I also realize that with this endowment of self awareness comes the responsibility of stewardship. There are a great many atheists (two of which I'm close to) who believe their life has purpose and they too believe they are to be good stewards of their environment, loved ones, and belongings. While the Christian view may detail a purposeful existence, I could imagine a great many would argue with you that they still believe their life has purpose regardless of a belief in a god. I saw your post as an oversimplification of the discussion. Really, It seemed to be crafted as a dig.
.

Come now, you can't make that generalization. According to many mainstream Christian theologies, man is God's special creation and historically opposition to scientific progress has come from those seeking to defend man and earth's special place in the cosmos.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I was quite serious.

[tie]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I know. I've been posting these polls for several years showing that a majority of people in the US reject evolution, and people always say they don't believe it. I know I've never talked to a creationist in person, and most people say they haven't either. So how can a majority of the country be creationists if no one's ever seen even one?

Really? This surprises me. I've run into a lot of creationists, who think the world is 500 years old (or whatever), don't believe in evolution, etc. -- even where you wouldn't expect to find them (e.g., a biochemistry lab). They don't tend to speak up in these settings, since everyone around them would think they're crazy. Somehow, I must seem sympathetic, but I also think they're crazy.

[olePigeon]

This about sums up Intelligent Design:

[olePigeon]

Ah, what the hell, I couldn't resist:

http://www.scaryideas.com/Cartoons/I...tDesign_27.jpg

(You'll have to click, it'll be tookied.)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Hang on a second. Merely by mentioning "geological and cosmological evolution," you had expected me to have recognized it as a reference to not only Lawrence Lerner's report but this David Applegate's story about it? How did you expect anyone to make that connection? I'm really curious.

Indeed, hang on a minute. A. I was not talking to you in the first place. I had mentioned that it's important to remember "supporting" evolution, not "bashing" any other hypothesis not supported by empirical evidence. B. My point in answering the question of that poster was not to detail any report itself, but to simply outline a need to teach evolution more effectively.

That is Applegate's take, not Lerner's, but even so the way I read it is that slighting cosmology in the classroom is not as great a "sin" as slighting (biological) evolution, rather than implying that cosmology is not being slighted. Especially since he had just finished saying that cosmology was in fact being slighted.

Right, illustrating a need to teach evolution more effectively. That was the only point. Are you trying to suggest that there's nothing the scientific community could do more effectively in teaching evolution? See reference to "elitism". Too much time is spent trying to counter an hypothesis not recognized by empirical science than is spent detailing aspects of a theory that is. That's been my point. I don't care what kind of BS you've extrapolated from it to be argumentative.

Yes, I asked for clarification on the inherently ambiguous terms before concluding you had said something completely idiotic. How foolish of me.

Yeah, it was entirely foolish, incredibly inefficient, and argumentative of you as usual. The inherently ambiguous terms you're referring to were found in a review of the study as posted by an editor with GeoTimes, published by The American Geological Institute. If you have a friggin' problem with the terminology, take it up with them.

Ok, here's another chance at the same question: what are you talking about? Your initial statement was this
"Geological and Cosmological evolution seem to enjoy the lions share of understanding while biological evolution is lacking."
What you just said is eerily meaningless WRT that. I'm starting to think ironknee is on to something. Are you some kind of practical joke?

What am I talking about? Evolution is not taught well enough. Period. That was my point. You couldn't argue this point, but of course you had to be argumentative so you challenged the "terms" I was using. Unfortunately, I didn't make those terms up (which is more accurately what doublespeak is, you're free to look it up.) I was referring to (while not actually citing it, the purpose of my response was not to cite specific reports, but to form the argument) the fact that standards are being adopted to tackle the problem.

You just gave a quote that disproves your statement:
"Lerner concludes that ... most ignore the rest of the universe and with it the cosmological knowledge gained over the past century."
If you think that sentiment supports cosmological evolution enjoying the lion's share, you've got deeper problems than can be addressed here.

No, you're arguing with yourself. This is the derailment of my point with your disingenuous stupidity. My point was that evolution is not taught well enough and that standards are being adopted to tackle the problem, albeit feeble.

Try again.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie

Really? This surprises me. I've run into a lot of creationists, who think the world is 500 years old (or whatever),

You're either trying to be funny or you're completely full of shxt.

don't believe in evolution

Believe in evolution? The fairy tale for adults? I wasn't aware that scientific theories were something we "believe in". I thought that was religion.

, etc. -- even where you wouldn't expect to find them (e.g., a biochemistry lab). They don't tend to speak up in these settings, since everyone around them would think they're crazy. Somehow, I must seem sympathetic, but I also think they're crazy.

... and they think you're cccrrrazzzzy too, but they love ya for your openmindedness.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling

I was quite serious.

yeah I know, down right certifiable.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

A. I was not talking to you in the first place.

No, but as a reader all I had to go on was "geological and cosmological evolution." When I asked for clarification, you accused me of "disingenuous stupidity." Therefore you must have expected your readers to have intuited whatever you were talking about just from the phrase "geological and cosmological evolution."

B. My point in answering the question of that poster was not to detail any report itself, but to simply outline a need to teach evolution more effectively.

...By saying that cosmology is taught more effectively, something that is not true.

Right, illustrating a need to teach evolution more effectively. That was the only point. Are you trying to suggest that there's nothing the scientific community could do more effectively in teaching evolution?

I don't really see what the scientific community has to do with teaching. Do you mean the teaching community? Or do you mean that scientists should be working harder to discover something that would convince you that evolution is true?

Too much time is spent trying to counter an hypothesis not recognized by empirical science than is spent detailing aspects of a theory that is.

I disagree. The theory is plenty detailed, in the scientific literature. If you mean that certain states are failing to pass those details to the classroom, that's fine, but that's not what you said. Incidentally, according to that report you cited, the state in which the Discovery Institute resides scored a B on teaching evolution. How do you propose to link poor teaching of evolution with disbelief in it? I think your "it's just plain not taught well enough" hypothesis is less believable than the OP's publication in Science that concludes the problem is a combination of fundamentalism, ignorance and political attacks to evolution.

Argumentative as usual.The inherently ambiguous terms you're referring to were found in a review of the study as posted by an editor with GeoTimes, published by The American Geological Institute. If you have a friggin' problem with the terminology, take it up with them.

Actually no, they both weren't. The term "geological evolution" was, and directly after it was an explanation of what that term means, which is helpful since it has no single inherent meaning. All I did was ask you for the same clarification, and you accused me of being disingenuously stupid for it. That's argumentative.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Believe in evolution? The fairy tale for adults? I wasn't aware that scientific theories were something we "believe in". I thought that was religion.

You're thinking of faith, not belief. Evolution is about as much of a fairy tale as 1 + 1 = 2.

[Spliffdaddy]

Prove it then.