Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   It's a Sad Day For the Future Of American Children.
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 111 (67125)
11-17-2003 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by keith63
11-17-2003 3:54 PM


Re: US Constitution
Which law specifically is that, and in what way do you feel it does not conflict with the court interpretation of the first amendment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by keith63, posted 11-17-2003 3:54 PM keith63 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by keith63, posted 11-17-2003 4:16 PM Dan Carroll has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 62 of 111 (67127)
11-17-2003 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by keith63
11-17-2003 3:39 PM


Re: US Constitution
keith63
I simply think that any errors in the theory should be pointed out and explored.
Without doubt this is true.There is an excellent story called Cargo Cult Science which you can locate as the last story on this webpage.
http://www.velns.org/valts/feynman/ Scroll to tab on the right to near the bottom and locate this title and read.
Let me know what you think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by keith63, posted 11-17-2003 3:39 PM keith63 has not replied

keith63
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 111 (67132)
11-17-2003 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dan Carroll
11-17-2003 3:53 PM


Which one. I see three and I am not sure which you are talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-17-2003 3:53 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-17-2003 4:18 PM keith63 has not replied
 Message 67 by keith63, posted 11-17-2003 4:29 PM keith63 has replied

keith63
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 111 (67136)
11-17-2003 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dan Carroll
11-17-2003 3:57 PM


Re: US Constitution
Error: 404
Here is the law and the site which I took it from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-17-2003 3:57 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-17-2003 4:20 PM keith63 has not replied
 Message 80 by zephyr, posted 11-17-2003 5:16 PM keith63 has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 111 (67140)
11-17-2003 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by keith63
11-17-2003 4:07 PM


quote:
You:
The schools are not congress.
quote:
Me:
For instance, the first amendment only says that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. It doesn't say anything about state government. But it's fairly obvious that the intent was a blanket protection of free speech, so that's how the law is interpreted. Even though there's nothing in the constitution that says the mayor of Chicago can't pass a law forbidding the Tribune from running a negative opinion piece about him, he's still not allowed to do so.
With religious teaching in schools, we have to go to the other writings of the constitutional authors at the time. The founding fathers make it abundantly clear in their various writings that their intent was a blanket separation of church and state. Therefore, the courts have interpreted the portions of the first amendment which relate to religion to mean just that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by keith63, posted 11-17-2003 4:07 PM keith63 has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 111 (67141)
11-17-2003 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by keith63
11-17-2003 4:16 PM


Re: US Constitution
quote:
Here is the law and the site which I took it from.
Okay. What part of "clear secular intent" is so confusing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by keith63, posted 11-17-2003 4:16 PM keith63 has not replied

keith63
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 111 (67144)
11-17-2003 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by keith63
11-17-2003 4:07 PM


In the case of Edwards v. Aguillard the Supreme Court in 1987 stated that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction." The court also indicated that there should be no constitutional crisis created with including creation science so long as it is done with the "intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction" and, provided it is not taught to the exclusion of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by keith63, posted 11-17-2003 4:07 PM keith63 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by keith63, posted 11-17-2003 4:31 PM keith63 has not replied

keith63
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 111 (67145)
11-17-2003 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by keith63
11-17-2003 4:29 PM


The court also indicated that there should be no constitutional crisis created with including creation science so long as it is done with the "intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction" and, provided it is not taught to the exclusion of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by keith63, posted 11-17-2003 4:29 PM keith63 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-17-2003 4:32 PM keith63 has not replied
 Message 71 by Brad McFall, posted 11-17-2003 4:44 PM keith63 has not replied
 Message 72 by sidelined, posted 11-17-2003 4:48 PM keith63 has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 111 (67146)
11-17-2003 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by keith63
11-17-2003 4:31 PM


quote:
What part of "clear secular intent" is so confusing?
You'll excuse the quotes, but I really hate repeating myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by keith63, posted 11-17-2003 4:31 PM keith63 has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 70 of 111 (67149)
11-17-2003 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by NosyNed
11-17-2003 3:52 PM


The difficulties ARE NOT taught out on the "advanced" level after all. Will Provine uses Phil Johnson's work as he used Jehova's Witness work in my day in an advanced undergraduate course - as a joke or to show why NOT to use it letting the student not come to any conclusion or come to Provine's. The thinking IS VERY ELEMENTARY and can be done on the most obvious level but becuase differntial equations have not been suplanted by the newer or different kinds of thinking that are available it is not until the advanced level that these issues today appear and then it is only over a small beer for every one else is off becoming lawyers, doctors and Bill Clinton. Leon Croizat sequestered himself in Venezula but continuted the same stuff he was doing at Harvard. He knew a generation before me that the world was not ready to get beyond "darwin" and it is really only creationists who are prepared. I only ask for the carrer which I paid for. If that in my generation casues me to become Socrates to the youth then that is what it will have to be becuase the alternative is a rack of rock and irate rats rating isotopes by the end of the day, today which already was another generation's unresovled problem. The children should not suffer no matter the politics.
I am saying that there is something IN THE CONTINUUM OF BIOLOGICAL CHANGE that I am only being able to abduct so far from creationism. The slowing down of the models on the time differential will only if monopolarly benefit an evolutionary presumption so there should be NO fear to have the science be a law. Perhaps it will first occur outside the US. Instead because only those with the differential equation tuaght understanding etc instead of "fear" what comes across is their insistence that traditional science remain in place which IS NOT FEAR and tears of not knowing God flow for the absecne of what WAS there. The elite simply default to a Lewontin position that the equations are too hard to solve. Wolfram suggeted otherwise and so had I. And now I expressed the secular side.How droll.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2003 3:52 PM NosyNed has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 71 of 111 (67151)
11-17-2003 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by keith63
11-17-2003 4:31 PM


That's right. And that is why I am doumbfounded as to how this particular website can fail to try to develop this line of understanding. Ned for one refuses. That's his perogative I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by keith63, posted 11-17-2003 4:31 PM keith63 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2003 4:48 PM Brad McFall has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 72 of 111 (67153)
11-17-2003 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by keith63
11-17-2003 4:31 PM


keith63
Lol Just how do you propose that creationism would enhance the effectiveness of science instruction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by keith63, posted 11-17-2003 4:31 PM keith63 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 7:19 AM sidelined has not replied
 Message 90 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 9:58 AM sidelined has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 73 of 111 (67154)
11-17-2003 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Brad McFall
11-17-2003 4:44 PM


Brad, I do NOT refuse. I give up. I think there is a difference. I can NOT understand what you are saying. Maybe my fault, maybe yours, maybe some of both. I do know that I'm not the only one who has a tough time with your posts so there is at least some chance that the fault lies there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Brad McFall, posted 11-17-2003 4:44 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Brad McFall, posted 11-17-2003 5:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 74 of 111 (67156)
11-17-2003 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Mammuthus
10-21-2002 8:21 AM


neither evolution nor creation can be completely proven. nonbody was there when God created the universe and likewise nobody was present when the big bang occured. I guess we choose which one to believe in and which one we dont. both evolution and creation are religions. Their followers believe in them by faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Mammuthus, posted 10-21-2002 8:21 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2003 5:13 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 81 by Rei, posted 11-17-2003 5:41 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 75 of 111 (67157)
11-17-2003 5:01 PM


both of them have their respective proofs and misteries. We should teach in our schools all the theories and since we are all free men we should let the students decide what they want to believe in.

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by PaulK, posted 11-17-2003 5:05 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 79 by JonF, posted 11-17-2003 5:15 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024