British Ban Teaching Creationism As S...

British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Should The U.S. Do The Same?

There are 164 comments on the Outside the Beltway story from Jun 24, 2014, titled British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Should The U.S. Do The Same?. In it, Outside the Beltway reports that:

"The parties acknowledge that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement [which preclude the teaching of pseudoscience and require the teaching of evolution] apply to all academies.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Outside the Beltway.

Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#84 Jul 22, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i see what comes to my eyes. again no faith needed.
So you don't believe in radio waves then.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#85 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
So you do faith in your eyes! They have earned your faith my foot. Tell that to a baby, babies also have eyes you know. The rest is just bla bla bla but the main point is made. Ye hath faith in something, in this case thine eyes. Of course you have faith, all humans do!
Hebrews 11:1 one defines face as assurance about what we do not see. He is claiming to accept that which he sees. By that definition he does not have faith in his eyes. He may have faith, he hasn't said, but you haven't shown that faith is intrinsic to him or anyone else with your mindless rants.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#86 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
That does it, the witness is confused and not of sound mind. Your honour, he has no faith in his own mind! May the jury consider that in it's fullness, THE WITNESS HAS NO FAITH IN HIS MIND.
No further questions, the witness is dismissed and we request that the court adjourns for psychiatric reports on the witness.
This is confusing. I see that you are also the witness in this scenario. What were the findings of the psychiatric reports as if we couldn't guess?

Your whole approach to your position against science seems to be to attack it as a ranting lunatic in hopes to win by attrition.

You are a parody of a zealous fundamentalist rather than someone with a genuine position.
In Six Days

Llansantffraid, UK

#87 Jul 22, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>This is confusing. I see that you are also the witness in this scenario. What were the findings of the psychiatric reports as if we couldn't guess?
Your whole approach to your position against science seems to be to attack it as a ranting lunatic in hopes to win by attrition.
You are a parody of a zealous fundamentalist rather than someone with a genuine position.
You are on the mark, I attack error wherever I see it. There is so much of it here masquerading as science. I'm against that, too true I am.

I think you underestimate my fundamentalism, don't insult me like that. I need more zeal to stand for truth about origins, we didn't come from a soup.

Psychiatric reports weren't done in the end because the subject who had no faith in his mind wouldn't speak. Apparently he had no faith in his mouth either!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#88 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
So you do faith in your eyes! They have earned your faith my foot. Tell that to a baby, babies also have eyes you know. The rest is just bla bla bla but the main point is made. Ye hath faith in something, in this case thine eyes. Of course you have faith, all humans do!
And babies seem to have no initial idea of what the signals that they get from their eyes means. Moving objects fascinate newborns since it is different from the static background. It takes very little time to associate controlling the head with controlling the stability of an image. Babies learn to see.

http://www.childrensvision.com/development.ht...

It is not that difficult of a task. And even when very young they learn that moving objects can hurt you.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#89 Jul 22, 2014
We should do the same here
In Six Days

Llansantffraid, UK

#90 Jul 22, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And babies seem to have no initial idea of what the signals that they get from their eyes means. Moving objects fascinate newborns since it is different from the static background. It takes very little time to associate controlling the head with controlling the stability of an image. Babies learn to see.
http://www.childrensvision.com/development.ht...
It is not that difficult of a task. And even when very young they learn that moving objects can hurt you.
Interesting. How do the authors know what ideas babies have about their visual perceptions?

Moving objects also catch the adult eye which is why for example, unless we consciously override it, we will automatically look at a flickering TV screen. We don't learn this, neither do babies because it's hard wired into the physiology.

Back to the original point, we have 100% unlearned pre-programme, pre-wired faith in our senses. When your pain receptors are stimulated you don't weigh things up, you know instantly you are in pain. You know you are in pain through faith in the sense data so faith as part of information processing is ineliminable & is not unique to Christian's knowledge of a God. It pervades our knowledge structure & the majority of people know scientific facts through faith in something. The something may be an authority, a text book or an experiment but even the experiment relied on faith in its methods, constancy of natural laws, the scientist's eyes etc, etc. Everyone relies on faith & it's folly to deny it. It's not a dirty word.

Bottom line then, just because a thing is known by faith it doesn't invalidate the knowledge.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#91 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. How do the authors know what ideas babies have about their visual perceptions?
Moving objects also catch the adult eye which is why for example, unless we consciously override it, we will automatically look at a flickering TV screen. We don't learn this, neither do babies because it's hard wired into the physiology.
Instead of making foolish assumptions why don't you try to find out how they derived their conclusions. Like most creatards you are not willing to do your own homework. You make idiotic statements and then do not support them. I have supported my claims, until you show they are wrong they stand.
Back to the original point, we have 100% unlearned pre-programme, pre-wired faith in our senses. When your pain receptors are stimulated you don't weigh things up, you know instantly you are in pain. You know you are in pain through faith in the sense data so faith as part of information processing is ineliminable & is not unique to Christian's knowledge of a God. It pervades our knowledge structure & the majority of people know scientific facts through faith in something. The something may be an authority, a text book or an experiment but even the experiment relied on faith in its methods, constancy of natural laws, the scientist's eyes etc, etc. Everyone relies on faith & it's folly to deny it. It's not a dirty word.
Bottom line then, just because a thing is known by faith it doesn't invalidate the knowledge.
No, we do not. That can also be shown by how people deaf from birth have a harder time learning how to hear with the Cochlear Implant if they have it added later in life rather than very early life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant...

Our responses to our senses is a learned response. Perhaps the only really "instinctual" sense is that of pain. Even for that there is some learning involved. We learn how not to hurt ourselves at a very early age too.

Faith is not inborn. You have not been able to show that, all you have done is to make some bogus claims.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#92 Jul 22, 2014
And nobody knows by faith. If you know something you can demonstrate it. I know that evolution is correct and I can show how it is real. You only believe that creation is right since you have no evidence that supports your belief.
In Six Days

West Felton, UK

#93 Jul 22, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Instead of making foolish assumptions why don't you try to find out how they derived their conclusions. Like most creatards you are not willing to do your own homework. You make idiotic statements and then do not support them. I have supported my claims, until you show they are wrong they stand.
<quoted text>
No, we do not. That can also be shown by how people deaf from birth have a harder time learning how to hear with the Cochlear Implant if they have it added later in life rather than very early life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant...
Our responses to our senses is a learned response. Perhaps the only really "instinctual" sense is that of pain. Even for that there is some learning involved. We learn how not to hurt ourselves at a very early age too.
Faith is not inborn. You have not been able to show that, all you have done is to make some bogus claims.
I don't get information about babies or physiology from Wikipedia. Of course the authors have no idea whatsoever what is on any baby's mind. Only a gullible idiot thinks the authors had insight into the baby's minds ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha! You fell for that shit. Ha ha ha!!!!!!

You switch from eyes to cochlear implants, whose eyes do you think you are pulling the wool over? Senses are not responses, responses are motor not sensory. Sensory is input, response is output. I don't believe I'm having to explain this.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't get information about babies or physiology from Wikipedia. Of course the authors have no idea whatsoever what is on any baby's mind. Only a gullible idiot thinks the authors had insight into the baby's minds ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha! You fell for that shit. Ha ha ha!!!!!!
You switch from eyes to cochlear implants, whose eyes do you think you are pulling the wool over? Senses are not responses, responses are motor not sensory. Sensory is input, response is output. I don't believe I'm having to explain this.
Why not? If you have doubts about a Wikipedia article you can check out its sources, or are you too lazy to do that?

And you fool, the reason that I switched from eyes, which was not a Wikipedia source to the Cochlear implant was that I had already proven my point about eyes. Then I showed it was the same with hearing.

Meanwhile you have provided nothing that supports your ideas except for your extreme idiocy.

Of course we all know that creatards never have anything that backs up their beliefs in a fairy tale.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#95 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days

West Felton, UK

#96 Jul 22, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not? If you have doubts about a Wikipedia article you can check out its sources, or are you too lazy to do that?
And you fool, the reason that I switched from eyes, which was not a Wikipedia source to the Cochlear implant was that I had already proven my point about eyes. Then I showed it was the same with hearing.
Meanwhile you have provided nothing that supports your ideas except for your extreme idiocy.
Of course we all know that creatards never have anything that backs up their beliefs in a fairy tale.
So how does one know what ideas a newborn baby is entertaining be it from Wikipedia or another of your chosen sources? How do you get the babies to talk in this amazing fairy tale of yours? I bet in the tale motor is sensory & sensory is motor. Talk about believing six impossible things before breakfast.

And have figured out the difference between sensory and motor yet?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#97 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. How do the authors know what ideas babies have about their visual perceptions?
Very simple:
1) they don't have the proper wiring in their heads for that yet. After birth, two third of the total cerebellum still have to be formed. As the visual areas of the cortex grow, the infantís initially dim and limited sight develops into full binocular vision. At about three months, an infantís power of recognition improves dramatically; this coincides with significant growth in the hippocampus, the limbic structure related to recognition memory. Language circuits in the frontal and temporal lobes become consolidated in the first year, influenced strongly by the language an infant hears. All this takes a full year. In the second year, the wiring of the frontal lobe accelerates. That's why most children only manage to produce their first words in their second year. Only in the second year he recognizes himself in a mirror. Only in the third year
2) you can tell by their erratic behavior which initially does not relate to the object in a meaningful way
3) there are tens of observations on children that in a smart and intelligent way know to draw conclusions from the mental faculties of babies. It is part of developmental psychology and neurology.

One cannot even explain to the most obvious of obvious everyone knows who has raised a child or from own old memory: children have to learn a lot and especially the recognition of things, both in sight and hearing.

And even then endless tattles, crap, rubbish, idiocy and caboodle follows.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#98 Jul 22, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>You are saying there is no creator. That is assumption and NOT good.
Not assumption.....fact.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
So how does one know what ideas a newborn baby is entertaining be it from Wikipedia or another of your chosen sources? How do you get the babies to talk in this amazing fairy tale of yours? I bet in the tale motor is sensory & sensory is motor. Talk about believing six impossible things before breakfast.

And have figured out the difference between sensory and motor yet?
Wow, Grade A+ projection. If you want to learn how they know this you can Google search it yourself. Or listen to the people like TurkanaBoy that know biology. You are incredibly lazy and prejudiced. You will not even look up something from a bogus source to support your idiocy. Meanwhile I found a good source, Wikipedia in this case (Wikipedia is still sometimes totally worthless) but then I did for you what you should have done for yourself. I found a link that they used to support their claim

By the way, if you want people to treat you like an idiot keep on making the sort of post that you just made.
wondering

Morris, OK

#100 Jul 22, 2014
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't believe in radio waves then.
they can be tested, tracked and shown. i do not need to believe in them for there is evidence for them.
wondering

Morris, OK

#101 Jul 22, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, Grade A+ projection. If you want to learn how they know this you can Google search it yourself. Or listen to the people like TurkanaBoy that know biology. You are incredibly lazy and prejudiced. You will not even look up something from a bogus source to support your idiocy. Meanwhile I found a good source, Wikipedia in this case (Wikipedia is still sometimes totally worthless) but then I did for you what you should have done for yourself. I found a link that they used to support their claim
By the way, if you want people to treat you like an idiot keep on making the sort of post that you just made.
i have to agree with sixdays on the baby thoughts. we have no clue what a baby is thinking most of the time. now we can guess and tell some thoughts by their actions but as far as a baby just setting and thinking, we have no clue.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#102 Jul 22, 2014
Legislating from Washington what is and isn't taught in school. Forget the details - does this really sound like good policy outside of extreme situations?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#103 Jul 22, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i have to agree with sixdays on the baby thoughts. we have no clue what a baby is thinking most of the time. now we can guess and tell some thoughts by their actions but as far as a baby just setting and thinking, we have no clue.
No, we can observe how a baby reacts to certain stimuli and make deductions. We can observe how and when the brain develops as TurkanaBoy pointed out and make further deductions. If you have done no work in a particular field of science you are not qualified to gainsay there deductions without any evidence supporting your claims.

Just because you would have to guess do not make the mistake of thinking others would have to guess.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 29 min was auch immer 85,629
What's your religion? 32 min was auch immer 119
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 3 hr dollarsbill 4,988
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 11 hr ChristineM 165,438
Humans evolved from Canadians Sat Mystic science 1
Evolution of the Tennessean species Sat Mystic science 1
Experiment In Evolution, Genetic Algorithms and... Sat was auch immer 10
More from around the web