GOP may have Rush, Hannity and Levin moderate debates...

[ballen0351]

Creationism is only popular in certain circles....usually those who make their world few on the premise of faith vs the known.
Yeah, he can teach it. But not in science, as science. It belongs more into the realm of philosophies along with the beast with two backs, a metaphor which probably goes back to the teachings of one Greek philosopher or another, explaining the need for togetherness of human by their 'creation' from one whole, thus searching for their counter part....

I don't mind the subject 'Bible as Literature' but we have moved from making the Good Book the base of schooling.

Did he say it was science or is it taught as the other thing some of you might have been told by your parents or saw on TV or is also a popular version of where people come from. Depends on how he taught it. Awful funny how frightened you guys are that someone used the G word in a school

 

[billc]

The investigations were flawed as well...a lot of money and reputations were at stake in the Climate Gate scandal...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/the_climategate_investigation.html

Last month, while the American media were distracted by the health care vote in Congress, the British Parliament published the results of its investigation into East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that has been at the center of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW)controversy. It seems that many were hoping that no one would read this report, at least not beyond the milquetoast executive summary.


Buried deep within the report is a compelling piece of evidence. In volume two, there is a memorandum submitted as evidence from Lord Lawson of Blaby, chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which was in response to four very significant questions from the investigating committee. This memo confirms the claims by many global warming skeptics that the scientists at CRU were trying to hide data and silence the skeptics. The questions asked by the investigative committee are as follows:

And here...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/24/the-telegraph-gets-it-about-climatgate-inestigations-and-the-conflict-of-interest-of-publicly-funded-media/

Lord Oxburgh, the organisation’s director, was called in to head an internal inquiry into the leaked emails which included one infamous message referring to a “trick” to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.

The peer’s investigation cleared the scientists of malpractice. But critics claimed the report was a whitewash and Lord Oxburgh also failed to declare his involvement with Globe before he began his investigation.
Meanwhile Bob Ward, from the Grantham Institute, which works alongside Globe, praised a second inquiry by former civil servant Muir Russell, which also cleared the climate researchers.
He said it had “lifted the cloud of suspicion” and demonstrated that “the integrity of climate science is intact.”
Globe International’s work is paid for with donations from multi-millionaire backers and through partnerships with other environmental groups.
Globe also confirmed last night that it received direct funding from the Department of Energy and the Department of International Development (DfID). including a grant of £91,240 provided by DfID since the Coalition came to power last year.
More cash from DfID is filtered through the Complus Alliance – a “sustainable development communications alliance” of broadcasters based in Costa Rica which is also supported by the BBC World Service Trust, the Corporation’s independent charity,.

 

[granfire]

Did he say it was science or is it taught as the other thing some of you might have been told by your parents or saw on TV or is also a popular version of where people come from. Depends on how he taught it. Awful funny how frightened you guys are that someone used the G word in a school

Nope, the G word does not frighten me. Ignorance does however, and that is what school is supposed to combat.
The G word is taught in church, in bible school. Create away.
Old 'believes' have long since been debunked, even against the church, under thread of severest of punishments (inquisition, anyone?)

It was once a popular believe that the Earth was the center of the universe...debunked by a slit in the roof, oh, 400 years or so ago...

One can believe in a supreme being without being a - golly, I can't come up with a fitting analogy that is not completely against the TM rules!

It's somewhat like proclaiming 'God doesn't make mistakes' while insisting a certain segment of the population is wrong about how they feel about themselves, their body and whom they are attracted to...

God gave mankind a brain...

 

[billc]

Here is a look at the investigations...and comments on how they were flawed...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/07...ons-to-muir-russells-sham-climategate-report/

 

[billc]

From Forbes magazine...a look at what they call the whitewash of Climate Gate...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/28/michael-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-one/

When Lindzen was informed during the interview that the first three allegations had already been dismissed at the inquiry stage, his response, as quoted in the Committee’s report, was: “It’s thoroughly amazing. I mean these are issues that he explicitly stated in the emails. I’m wondering what is going on?”

Dr. Lindzen’s bewilderment is understandable. Concerning the Committee’s conclusion regarding the first allegation (suppressing or falsifying data) — characterizing the “trick” to “hide the decline” as legitimate application of a conventional statistical methodology, ignored or misconstrued salient facts. While Mann’s own research methodology and results have indeed been challenged as fatally flawed, the actual trick should be examined within a broader context.

Regarding the second allegation, determining if Mann had directly or indirectly deleted or destroyed emails or other information, the findings were at least very lenient. When Phil Jones asked Mann to delete email records being sought under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act and get a colleague, Eugene Wahl, to do the same, he replied “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP”. And while PSU investigators never chose to interview Wahl, he later testified to a federal inspector general that he did receive Mann’s message and complied. Accordingly, it would appear that Mann was at least “indirectly” involved in deleting information when he passed along those instructions. And since there are no records to prove otherwise, everyone is asked to take Mann’s word that he didn’t do the same.

The findings have set off a new wave of criticism, accusing the university and its panel of failing to interview key people (such as Jones), neglecting to conduct more than a cursory review of allegations, and structuring the inquiry so that the outcome — exoneration — was a foregone conclusion. In February 2010 Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the ranking Republican on the House Investigations Committee, charged that Penn State failed to settle all of the charges regarding Mann’s work and demanded that all of his current research grant funding be frozen. That would include a $541,184 National Science Foundation stimulus grant to study climate change.

Forbes also looks at the British investigations...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/07/05/michael-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-ii/

The first UEA-sponsored investigation called the “Scientific Assessment Panel Inquiry” was headed by Lord Ronald Oxburgh, an ardent global warming believer with strong green energy business ties. He served as chairman of U.K. Shell (a major biofuel player), chairman of the wind company Falk Renewables, and a board member of Climate Change Capital, a major investor in carbon credits.

Soon after the inquiry was announced, Phil Willis made an announcement that raised questions about his objectivity regarding the merits of CRU criticism: “There are a significant number of climate deniers who are using the UEA e-mails to support the case that this is poor science. We do not believe this is healthy, and therefore we want to call in UEA so that the public can see what they are saying.” The term “denier” is broadly seen as an analogous and pejorative reference to those who deny the historical fact of the Holocaust, implying that UEA/CRU scientific methods and integrity should be beyond question.

The inquiry scope was limited to three key areas: freedom of information issues; accuracy and availability of CRU data and programs; and the independent reviews.

Written evidence collected from 57 different groups was limited to 3,000 words per submission, allowing little opportunity to make full cases or to provide details.

While the committee took no direct testimony from those who challenged CRU activities, methods or errors, they nevertheless determined that there was essentially nothing wrong with the organization’s basic science.

Hans von Storch, a professor at the Meteorological Institute at the University of Hamburg and director of the Institute of Coastal Research at the GHSS Research Centre in Geestacht, Germany believes Dr. Horton’s appraisal applies this assessment to all three inquiries: “Nothing ought to be swept under the carpet. Some of the inquiries — like in the U.K. did exactly the latter. They blew an opportunity to restore trust.”

 

[ballen0351]

Nope, the G word does not frighten me. Ignorance does however, and that is what school is supposed to combat.
The G word is taught in church, in bible school. Create away.
Old 'believes' have long since been debunked, even against the church, under thread of severest of punishments (inquisition, anyone?)

It was once a popular believe that the Earth was the center of the universe...debunked by a slit in the roof, oh, 400 years or so ago...

One can believe in a supreme being without being a - golly, I can't come up with a fitting analogy that is not completely against the TM rules!

It's somewhat like proclaiming 'God doesn't make mistakes' while insisting a certain segment of the population is wrong about how they feel about themselves, their body and whom they are attracted to...

God gave mankind a brain...

Right god gave kids a brain also. And totally ignoring a belief held by millions of people and pretending it doesn't exist is silly. I got no problem teaching eveloution as the main topic but I also have no problem with then talking about other beliefs on the topic. thats the real ignorance

 

[Steve]

I would have no problem teaching creationism in schools, in a Social Studies or World Religions or Fundamentals of Religious Philosophy course. In other words, the creation myths for Christianity are valuable (IMO) to understand. Other creation myths I would expect to be taught in that class would include the fundamentals of Buddhism and Hinduism along with the theistic religions and associated myths. There is value in knowledge, and I encourage my kids to be curious. I'd have no problem with it.

BUT!!! It's not science. The appropriate place for creationism is in a religions class, not a science class. And suggesting that it is equal to evolution is silliness and would be a disservice to our kids and their education.

Edit: And to be clear, I'd have no problem with a world religions class taught in a public school, provided that all of the major world religions are taught fairly and equitably. Also, we should bear in mind that Christianity is NOT the world's only major religion. There are billions of people who are Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu (each).

 

[ballen0351]

I would have no problem teaching creationism in schools, in a Social Studies or World Religions or Fundamentals of Religious Philosophy course. In other words, the creation myths for Christianity are valuable (IMO) to understand. Other creation myths I would expect to be taught in that class would include the fundamentals of Buddhism and Hinduism along with the theistic religions and associated myths. There is value in knowledge, and I encourage my kids to be curious. I'd have no problem with it.

BUT!!! It's not science. The appropriate place for creationism is in a religions class, not a science class. And suggesting that it is equal to evolution is silliness and would be a disservice to our kids and their education.

Your already teaching the subject in that class. So now the teacher says I'm teaching you one part of this but next semester in a totally different class you can learn other beliefs on the topic. Its easier to go over it all at once while they are teaching the topic.

 

[granfire]

Right god gave kids a brain also. And totally ignoring a belief held by millions of people and pretending it doesn't exist is silly. I got no problem teaching eveloution as the main topic but I also have no problem with then talking about other beliefs on the topic. thats the real ignorance

Good god. If we went what the majority in this country believed, we'd be even further up the creek, but with out a canoe!
That is no argument.
Believe in itself is based on the not knowing.
Science on the other hand is not.

There!

 

[ballen0351]

Good god. If we went what the majority in this country believed, we'd be even further up the creek, but with out a canoe!
That is no argument.
Believe in itself is based on the not knowing.
Science on the other hand is not.

There!

So no unproven theory is ever taught in science class?

 

[Steve]

Your already teaching the subject in that class. So now the teacher says I'm teaching you one part of this but next semester in a totally different class you can learn other beliefs on the topic. Its easier to go over it all at once while they are teaching the topic.

Evolution and creation myths are not the same thing, ballen. As I said, I'm all for teaching world religions. There is a lot of value in understanding the 5 belief systems representing almost everyone in the world. But, whether your god created the heavens and the Earth in 7 days, or Brahma essentially birthed the universe, or you believe in reincarnation, these are not science and have no place in a science class.

I think inclusion is way better than exclusion, but we need to teach things in context. Adding creationism to a science class is intentionally misleading and creates a false equivalence in the minds of the students. They are not the same. It's like teaching kids in a math class to play a musical instrument. There is value in both, and you could argue that musical theory is grounded in math, but come on. They're different. Let's be real.

 

[Steve]

So no unproven theory is ever taught in science class?

If I believed that 2 + 2 = 5 and convinced a bunch of people that this is true, am I entitled to my belief? Sure. Of course. Should it be taught to kids in math class?

 

[ballen0351]

If I believed that 2 + 2 = 5 and convinced a bunch of people that this is true, am I entitled to my belief? Sure. Of course. Should it be taught to kids in math class?

Difference is you can prove 2+2=4. Can you Prove there is no God? You don't believe that's fine I don't care but thereare hundreds of millions of people that do. I don't believe in God I know for a fact he exists. I don't see what's it hurts giving two sides to something that you can't prove and letting the kids decide. You disagree that's fine. You will win the argument because its the cool thing to do now its banish God from anyplace public. It is what it is. Either way I don't think he deserves to loose his job. They told him to stop and nothing in the article says he didn't stop. But thats not good enough for some folks he needs to loose his job and be punished.

 

[arnisador]

Did he say it was science or is it taught as the other thing some of you might have been told by your parents or saw on TV or is also a popular version of where people come from. Depends on how he taught it.

He was a science teacher teaching it in his classroom, it said--it certainly sounds like he taught it in science. You might well ask students if their parents told them that the sun revolves around the earth or whether demons cause mental illness or whether a homunculus is involved in reproduction or (as my mother told me) negative numbers didn't exist when she went to school, but you'd wnat to follow up in each case by saying "...but this is known to be wrong".

Awful funny how frightened you guys are that someone used the G word in a school

A big part of the problem is that they don't also use the O word--Odin, who carved the first humans from an oak tree after using the dead body of a giant cow to form the earth. Or the Z(eus) word, or the Q(uetzalcoatl) word, or...

 

[arnisador]

The investigations were flawed as well...a lot of money and reputations were at stake in the Climate Gate scandal...

Conspiracies within conspiracies! I can't believe that the Illuminati are letting them get away with this.

 

[arnisador]

From Forbes magazine...a look at what they call the whitewash of Climate Gate...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/28/michael-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-one/

Do you actually go to any of these links yourself, or just look at the URL? From that web page:

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

So no, "they" did not call it a whitewash--you did, based on one person's opinion. For Forbes to have said it, it'd have to be their editorial opinion. This is very, very fundamental English composition and rhetoric issue--requiring only a high-school level understanding of writing and attribution. What you are saying is false and you either do not understand that or are intentionally attempting to create an inaccurate understanding in others--perhaps both.

 

[Steve]

Difference is you can prove 2+2=4. Can you Prove there is no God? You don't believe that's fine I don't care but thereare hundreds of millions of people that do. I don't believe in God I know for a fact he exists. I don't see what's it hurts giving two sides to something that you can't prove and letting the kids decide. You disagree that's fine. You will win the argument because its the cool thing to do now its banish God from anyplace public. It is what it is. Either way I don't think he deserves to loose his job. They told him to stop and nothing in the article says he didn't stop. But thats not good enough for some folks he needs to loose his job and be punished.

This is a perfect example of what I see as the basic problem. I posted twice, in two consecutive posts. In one, I clearly say that I'm for inclusion and not exclusion, and go in detail about how and why I'd endorse including training on the 5 major religions of the world in public schools. But you chose to respond only to the second, and overtly misrepresent my position with a strawman.

You do touch on the basic difference between science and religion, though. I'm not a scientist, nor am I religious. So, from the outside looking in, the primary difference between the two is that science invites a continuous and vigorous debate while religion does not. Can you prove or disprove God? No. And so, it's a matter of faith. Whereas science, including the theory of evolution, is about continuous, rigorous examination. In religion, you are encouraged to believe, and through your devout faith, your beliefs are strengthened. In science, including the Theory of Evolution, every new discovery either corrects or reinforces previously held beliefs. The theory of evolution is supported by a body of research and evidence that leads to conclusions. While the facts of evolution are evolving (forgive the pun), that it is on par with a statement of faith is completely unrealistic.

But for schools, the entire scientific method is fundamentally different from any kind of religious education or inquiry. They're just not the same thing, and confusing them or suggesting that they be combined in one class and taught as equivalent is a blatant attempt to mislead kids. Teach religions, but teach them as religions and don't try to sneak them in as a science. They are not.

As an aside, my son and I were in the car the other day. There was a car that had the darwin fish being eaten by the jesus fish. He said, "Natural selection. I wonder if they (the driver of the car) gets that." We laughed and agreed that he probably doesn't.

 

[ballen0351]

He was a science teacher teaching it in his classroom, it said--it certainly sounds like he taught it in science. You might well ask students if their parents told them that the sun revolves around the earth or whether demons cause mental illness or whether a homunculus is involved in reproduction or (as my mother told me) negative numbers didn't exist when she went to school, but you'd wnat to follow up in each case by saying "...but this is known to be wrong".

Did he teach it as fact or did he teach it as alternative popular belief shared by billions around the world but not scientifically excepted. That's the question I have. If that's all he taught was creationism then I'd have just as much an issue because he didn't teach evolution. I got no problem teaching both.

A big part of the problem is that they don't also use the O word--Odin, who carved the first humans from an oak tree after using the dead body of a giant cow to form the earth. Or the Z(eus) word, or the Q(uetzalcoatl) word, or...

Apparently you can use the G word as long as it is followed by " is dead"
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3781239?utm_hp_ref=religion

 

[Steve]

I think that Odin would have a lot more followers if His word were taught in the schools. As they say, in life, it's important to be yourself. Unless you can be a Viking, and then be a Viking.

 

[ballen0351]

This is a perfect example of what I see as the basic problem. I posted twice, in two consecutive posts. In one, I clearly say that I'm for inclusion and not exclusion, and go in detail about how and why I'd endorse including training on the 5 major religions of the world in public schools. But you chose to respond only to the second, and overtly misrepresent my position with a strawman.

I tried to answer both your post in one. I'm on my phone so its hard to respond to long posts on my phone. I disagree with teaching the same topic in two different classes. If your talking about where did man come from then you teach evolution and then you teach other widly excepted theory. Preface it with whatever disclaimer makes the oh my God g word in school crowd thinks is appropriate. But teaching the same topic in two different classes is a waist of time and energy and confusing to kids. Yes Mr jones I know what you taught but Mrs Murphy said this in social studies.

You do touch on the basic difference between science and religion, though. I'm not a scientist, nor am I religious. So, from the outside looking in, the primary difference between the two is that science invites a continuous and vigorous debate while religion does not. Can you prove or disprove God? No. And so, it's a matter of faith. Whereas science, including the theory of evolution, is about continuous, rigorous examination. In religion, you are encouraged to believe, and through your devout faith, your beliefs are strengthened. In science, including the Theory of Evolution, every new discovery either corrects or reinforces previously held beliefs. The theory of evolution is supported by a body of research and evidence that leads to conclusions. While the facts of evolution are evolving (forgive the pun), that it is on par with a statement of faith is completely unrealistic.

Ok if sxience is correct then where did we come from? Prove we were not created by God. Prove that evolution is not slight tweeks made by God to keep up with an ever changing universe.

But for schools, the entire scientific method is fundamentally different from any kind of religious education or inquiry. They're just not the same thing, and confusing them or suggesting that they be combined in one class and taught as equivalent is a blatant attempt to mislead kids. Teach religions, but teach them as religions and don't try to sneak them in as a science. They are not.

For schools it has nothing to do with scientific method and everything to do what whats PC.

As an aside, my son and I were in the car the other day. There was a car that had the darwin fish being eaten by the jesus fish. He said, "Natural selection. I wonder if they (the driver of the car) gets that." We laughed and agreed that he probably doesn't.

Good for you guys glad you get to spend time with your son