New Orleans schools ban creationism and 'revisionist' history in rebuke of Texas

There are 206 comments on the The Raw Story story from Dec 19, 2012, titled New Orleans schools ban creationism and 'revisionist' history in rebuke of Texas. In it, The Raw Story reports that:

The school board for Orleans Parish in Louisiana voted Tuesday night to ban the teaching of creationism as science and what they called a "revisionist" history curriculum promoted by the state of Texas.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Raw Story.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#123 Jan 6, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Death is a survival strategy? I assert that you have a brain disorder caused by worshiping at the altar of Darwinism far too long.
Yes, as a species the death of one generation to make way for the next generation is a survival strategy which allows long term adaptation and the ability to handle new threats.

Otherwise, the first dangerous thing to come along would cause extinction.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#124 Jan 6, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, as a species the death of one generation to make way for the next generation is a survival strategy which allows long term adaptation and the ability to handle new threats.
It's surprising to me that all species on planet earth have the remarkable foresight to avoid immortality.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#125 Jan 6, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>It's surprising to me that all species on planet earth have the remarkable foresight to avoid immortality.
Well, you are making two huge mistakes.

The first is thinking that not aging = immortality. It doesn't.

A mouse that never ages can still get eaten by a cat that does.

The second is thinking that this was a decision which occurred recently, as opposed to a strategy which was adopted by the earliest living things and has been carried on through ever since.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#126 Jan 6, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you are making two huge mistakes.
The first is thinking that not aging = immortality. It doesn't.
A mouse that never ages can still get eaten by a cat that does.
Do you really believe that I need to be concerned about that? I'm more worried about too many people at your dismal level of stupidity.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#127 Jan 6, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
The second is thinking that this was a decision which occurred recently, as opposed to a strategy which was adopted by the earliest living things and has been carried on through ever since.
It's even more remarkable to me that simple, self-replicating, organic molecules had the astounding foresight to avoid immortality.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128 Jan 6, 2013
Who says that they all avoided immortality.

There are many forms of immortal life on the Earth.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#129 Jan 7, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You're saying that science is meaningless
Science isn't, no. But since your alternative is arbitrarily separated biological trees of ancestry is rendered moot by billions of instances of magic quantum god-poofing, your own hypothesis becomes meaningless and scientifically non-testable.
Shubee wrote:
and that middle school students need to blindly accept the belief that oak trees and humans have a common ancestor.
http://assessment.aaas.org/items/EN046007#/0
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...
Leave those kids alone.
No, students should be taught the current accepted scientific concepts and critical thinking. You disagree with evolution as it now stands of course, but then that means either you or those students should use the scientific method to falsify it. So far that has not happened. That's not our problem.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#130 Jan 7, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I realize that trouble is made by challenging Darwinists to defend middle-school dogma scientifically. However, the issue is obviously much larger than my pleasure in exposing Darwinists' inability to defend middle-school level evolutionary theory.
No defense is needed against magical god-poofing.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#131 Jan 7, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>How is that relevant to my challenge to Darwinists to prove to middle-school students that the number of biological trees on planet earth can't possibly be 2, 3, 4 or even more?
Science is still open to the possibility, however as it's your claim it's up to you to back it up. You can't.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#132 Jan 7, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, it's an evolutionary step downwards. And being a super mutant, you have lost your ability to reason. I say again: mutants aren't evolved.
Evolution is not goal-directed. Devolution is but a mere creationist's wet dream.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#133 Jan 7, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem is inescapable: "When subjected only to natural forces, the human genome must irrevocably degenerate over time."
So the older we get, the more devolved our DNA becomes.
Chimney has addressed Sanford's reality-denying apologetics numerous times. The fact is that reality does not support his conclusions. Also Sanford is unable to use genetics, what being a YEC and all. Hence he can't use science he rejects for theological reasons to prove that science he rejects for theological reasons wrong. Plus, his alternative is ALSO Goddidit with magic, hence he can be dismissed for being just another dishonest fundie creationist hypocrite - twice at least.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#134 Jan 7, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>No. We're obviously programmed to age, which is an error in the DNA, but in the beginning the code represented maximal perfection.
Programmed by whom via what mechanism? And what caused the decline? Talking lizard again? How many times have I told you to go digging for that particular fossil? Of course that might be hard for you since you have no idea what strata to look at, what being "open-minded" as to the age of the Earth, and uh pretty much everything else.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#135 Jan 7, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>It's obvious that Dr. Sanford and I understand the extraordinarily stupefying subterfuge called natural selection.
To do that you'd have to actually understand biology first. As it happens both of you have trouble understanding reality, much less scientific concepts.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#136 Jan 7, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>It's even more remarkable to me that simple, self-replicating, organic molecules had the astounding foresight to avoid immortality.
Of course forsight is essential to satisfy your incredulity.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#137 Jan 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Who says that they all avoided immortality.
Nutten said that. According to him, it was a biochemical decision by all self-replicating organic molecules.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TAP...
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#138 Jan 7, 2013
The Dude wrote:
students should be taught the current accepted scientific concepts and critical thinking. You disagree with evolution as it now stands of course, but then that means either you or those students should use the scientific method to falsify it. So far that has not happened. That's not our problem.
Any child mathematician can see through your illogical praise of senseless tradition. Why don't you and your ilk use the scientific method to falsify the converse to the common descent hypothesis?

It's you that is not thinking critically.

My scientific challenges still stand.

Science class is no place for arm-waving and religious dogma. So prove to middle-school students that the number of biological trees on planet earth can't possibly be 2, 3, 4 or even more.

The number of separate biological trees should be determined by measurements in actual experiments.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#139 Jan 7, 2013
The Dude wrote:
students should be taught the current accepted scientific concepts and critical thinking. You disagree with evolution as it now stands of course, but then that means either you or those students should use the scientific method to falsify it. So far that has not happened. That's not our problem.
I see no way to falsify the religious dogma called common descent.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#140 Jan 7, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Science is still open to the possibility,
That's not what middle-school students are being taught.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#141 Jan 7, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is not goal-directed.
The claim that mutants are evolved specifies a direction.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolve...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/develo...
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#142 Jan 7, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Chimney has addressed Sanford's reality-denying apologetics numerous times.
What has Chimney ever published in peer-review journals about genetics? How many patents does he hold?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 42 min dirtclod 163,689
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 19 hr Paul Porter1 78
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Thu Chimney1 141,315
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) May 19 Kathleen 19,031
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) May 18 SoE 178,597
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) May 18 MADRONE 1,870
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) May 15 emrenil 1,243
More from around the web