Self-Serving Liberal "Facts"

[PoliticalChic]

Many ordinary Fundamentalist Christians and ministers seem to be sincere Christians who take what leaders higher than them in the church say as absolute truth that they shouldn't question.

However, the leaders who are promoting the idea that Darwin's theory has no proof must not believe in God, because they wouldn't dare be dishonest if they did believe in God. Rather, for them, the church must merely be a career they make money in.

In reality, there are many sequences in the fossil record which show transitions from species to species. Since fossils are rare, that record isn't complete, but it does show that Darwin's theory has real validity, not just face validity.

However, there is a newer research technique that is better, and with it, Darwin's theory still holds up. Scientists are now comparing DNA of species, and even find the rate at which DNA mutates in a species. The DNA patterns show a history of species change with much precision.

The evidence for the Theory of Evolution is overwhelming.

Jim

"the leaders who are promoting the idea that Darwin's theory has no proof..."

No....this has nothing to do with the Church.


It is scientists who have testified to the vacancy of Darwin's theory.


While Darwin's theory posits gradual change due to the accumulation of tiny, random mutations, leading to brand new species, having brand new structures, and body organizations.....the fossil record has shown this not to be the case.

In an attempt to rescue Darwin, the most prominent neo-Darwinist, Stephen J. Gould has offered a new theory, the very opposite of Darwin's: Punctuated Equilibrium.

He says:
"The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. It in fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism. […] Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record."
— "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change," The Panda's Thumb: Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1980, pp. 182-184.




Do you understand the 'sleight of hand' he tried to get away with?


Gradual grad·u·al
ˈgrajo͞oəl/Submit
adjective
1.
taking place or progressing slowly or by degrees.


Sudden sud·den
ˈsədn/Submit
adjective
1.
occurring or done quickly and unexpectedly or without warning.



Tell me you find the two terms identical.
You should realize you've been hoodwinked.

 

[kiwiman127]

I think home school is fine and dandy.
My reservation is that the parent has an abrasive and narcissistic attitude, thus stunting the child's social skills that are needed in their adulthood.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think home school is fine and dandy.
My reservation is that the parent has an abrasive and narcissistic attitude, thus stunting the child's social skills that are needed in their adulthood.

Hey!

I represent......er, resent that!

 

[initforme]

It all depends upon each family's situation. Where we are the public schools are doing very well and the little private school cannot match what the public school can offer especially as far as college prep and AP classes. Our public school has been receiving awards for their college readiness. If homeschooling is your thing then go for it. If your public school is good, that is an option too. I received a catholic private education and despite how bad it was I turned out to be productive. Then again my parents weren't looking to the schools to raise me as some parents are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It all depends upon each family's situation. Where we are the public schools are doing very well and the little private school cannot match what the public school can offer especially as far as college prep and AP classes. Our public school has been receiving awards for their college readiness. If homeschooling is your thing then go for it. If your public school is good, that is an option too. I received a catholic private education and despite how bad it was I turned out to be productive. Then again my parents weren't looking to the schools to raise me as some parents are.

"I received a catholic private education and despite how bad it was..."

You're the expert on your own education....but:

Urban parochial schools are serving a growing share of disadvantaged and frequently non-Catholic youngsters. In a study published in 1990, for example, the Rand Corporation found that, of the Catholic school students in these Catholic high schools in New York City, 75 to 90 percent were black or Hispanic.

i. Over 66 percent of the Catholic school graduates received the New York State Regents diploma to signify completion of an academically demanding college preparatory curriculum, while only about 5 percent of the public school students received this distinction;

ii. The Catholic high schools graduated 95 percent of their students each year, while the public schools graduated slightly more 50 percent of their senior class;

iii. The Catholic school students achieved an average combined SAT score of 803, while the public school students' average combined SAT score was 642;

iv. 60 percent of the Catholic school black students scored above the national average for black students on the SAT, and over 70 percent of public school black students scored below the same national average.

 More recent studies confirm these observations. Why Catholic Schools Spell Success For America's Inner-CityChildren

 

[initforme]

Again it all depends upon the location. In my mind most American cities are scuzzy, places where I'd never raise my family. In my situation, the catholic school would have hurt my kids educational achievement and also squelched their opportunity to participate in extra curricular activities. Combine that with no AP classes or college readiness courses it would have been a huge mistake not to follow the route they did. You are talking about New York City. I'm not surprised. Cities are nightmares.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So what has been established is darwins theory has no proof and intelligent design has no proof. Where my kids went to school both theories were taught. Decisions left up to the kids. Since there is no so called PROOF of either I see this as fair. So the INDOCTRINATION rhetoric that some use is thrown out the window unless having the kids say the pledge of allegiance everyday(which they did) is a form of indoctrination.

Intelligent design is a pseudo-science, not a scientific theory.

The same applies to Darwin's theory.

1. Are you acknowledging that ID is a pseudo-science?

2. I think you are the only one here making an argument about Charles Darwin's original body of work,

i.e., arguing against it as though it represents the be-all end-all of research on the theory of Evolution,

as if all research and discovery ended with Darwin.

That is pointless.

 

[Daktoria]

[MENTION=44708]Whereisup[/MENTION]

Google 'homeschooling individual attention' and you will quickly find that one of the top reasons homeschoolers (which includes the author of this thread) give in their assertions of the merits of homeschooling

is the ability of the student to receive more individual attention.

Logically, based on the premise of this thread, the homeschooling OP doesn't herself believe that any such claim by homeschoolers has any merit.

To be fair, homeschooling isn't entirely unjustified.

Society can be crude, nasty, and brutish. Heck, there are lots of liberals in public education who complain about the bullying they endure from conservative counterparts who anti-intellectually believe in rugged individualism.

A homeschooled environment secures someone from this bullying. As long as the student has secondary influences, it really isn't a bad idea.

The problem is when homeschooled students have nothing else going for them. Then, they become socially alienated.

Homeschooling is as good as the knowledge of the parent, and other factors. That means that homeschooling can be better than public and private ordinary schools, or worse. Goethe, a great writer in Germany in the past, who has the same place in German literature as Shakespeare in English literature, was taught by his father. At the other end of the scale, I know a homeschooling mother who didn't teach her sons very much and took all her sons' tests for them.

I don't know the numbers. However, probably some homeschooling these days is quite good, some is quite bad, and some is in the middle.

There is something strange going on with bullying. It's not acceptable because it leaves many people with emotional scars and future problems coping.

But, a very large percentage of the best scientific, scholarly, and literary minds of humanity in history have been bullied in school.

One possibility is that they were so talented that they just survived the bullying.

Another possibility however is that the bullying made their creative work possible. Conforming to the current beliefs and ideas keeps people from coming up with new and different ideas, and people have an emotional need to conform( there has been startling research showing this).

So to be a major scientist, scholar, writer, etc., one has to be or become an outsider. Bullying tends to make a person into an outsider, and that might make it possible for people to not conform, but instead come up with ideas which are quite different, and often jeered at at first. Note that this is only a hypothesis so needs further research.

If the hypothesis is true however, then we need to find something better than bullying to break people out of conformity to their surrounding peers and the surrounding culture.

Jim

I don't know if I'd say that bullying makes someone an outsider. Some might strive to overcome the odds, but others get crushed.

Something I find interesting is how liberals appeal to culture so much while growing up because they're fed up with conservative rugged individualism which leads to bullying...

...but as those liberals get older, they start to despise the heritage which culture comes from because they confuse the culture of heritage with dysfunctional households which are stuck in their ways.

That's why I'm not convinced the OP is really conservative. A conservative understands not only that the free market has its place, but that the free market depends on customs, culture, and tradition to preserve the exercise of acquiring, transferring, and retributing property rights.

The OP is jumping the gun in forgetting these customs which are the same things that rugged individualists forget and deconstruct conservatism from the inside out which leads to liberals despising the very culture which would have averted their bullying to begin with.

Another thing which I find interesting is how liberals are artistic in their younger days, but become more scientific over time. They look towards the arts in order to express their creativity of alternative lifestyles to traditional conservatism, but eventually, they appeal to science in order to counterbalance the influence of religion.

Interestingly, it's the perversion of religion by rugged individualists which leads to liberals having poor experiences in the first place. There are issues like "grace versus law" and "good works" which rugged individualists exploit in order to appear faithful when they're really not.

To put it simply, school is not the only place where bullying takes place. It takes place a lot at church too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So what has been established is darwins theory has no proof and intelligent design has no proof. Where my kids went to school both theories were taught. Decisions left up to the kids. Since there is no so called PROOF of either I see this as fair. So the INDOCTRINATION rhetoric that some use is thrown out the window unless having the kids say the pledge of allegiance everyday(which they did) is a form of indoctrination.

And, if Darwin's theory is without proof.....why is it so prominently taught in science classes......?



1. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.


2. . What did Marx see in Darwin that he found entrancing?

The ability to claim that science 'demolished' the idea of a purpose in nature....an idea which is echoed in first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ and, in fact, consistent with many religions.

a. In the words of twentieth century evolutionist Ernst Mayr, Darwin “replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. … Darwin’s explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary.” Charles Darwin: Reluctant Revolutionary


b. Atheism. This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
The Schwarz Report | Essays




Darwin, Marx, atheism, secularism......indivisible.

It's not an exercise in science to try to dismiss facts because they might support atheism.

That constitutes a logical fallacy:

Description of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

The Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief is a fallacy that comes in the following patterns:


X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.

X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.

X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.

X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.

I wish that X were true, therefore X is true. This is known as Wishful Thinking.

I wish that X were false, therefore X is false. This is known as Wishful Thinking.

Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

 

[Daktoria]

It all depends upon each family's situation. Where we are the public schools are doing very well and the little private school cannot match what the public school can offer especially as far as college prep and AP classes. Our public school has been receiving awards for their college readiness. If homeschooling is your thing then go for it. If your public school is good, that is an option too. I received a catholic private education and despite how bad it was I turned out to be productive. Then again my parents weren't looking to the schools to raise me as some parents are.

"I received a catholic private education and despite how bad it was..."

You're the expert on your own education....but:

Urban parochial schools are serving a growing share of disadvantaged and frequently non-Catholic youngsters. In a study published in 1990, for example, the Rand Corporation found that, of the Catholic school students in these Catholic high schools in New York City, 75 to 90 percent were black or Hispanic.

i. Over 66 percent of the Catholic school graduates received the New York State Regents diploma to signify completion of an academically demanding college preparatory curriculum, while only about 5 percent of the public school students received this distinction;

ii. The Catholic high schools graduated 95 percent of their students each year, while the public schools graduated slightly more 50 percent of their senior class;

iii. The Catholic school students achieved an average combined SAT score of 803, while the public school students' average combined SAT score was 642;

iv. 60 percent of the Catholic school black students scored above the national average for black students on the SAT, and over 70 percent of public school black students scored below the same national average.

 More recent studies confirm these observations. Why Catholic Schools Spell Success For America's Inner-CityChildren

To be fair, that probably has little to nothing to do with the schools being private.

It probably has to do with how ethnic urban communities lack social fabric, yet religious institutions reweave social fabric back together so students have a more inviting environment to study within.

 

[Daktoria]

So what has been established is darwins theory has no proof and intelligent design has no proof. Where my kids went to school both theories were taught. Decisions left up to the kids. Since there is no so called PROOF of either I see this as fair. So the INDOCTRINATION rhetoric that some use is thrown out the window unless having the kids say the pledge of allegiance everyday(which they did) is a form of indoctrination.

And, if Darwin's theory is without proof.....why is it so prominently taught in science classes......?



1. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.


2. . What did Marx see in Darwin that he found entrancing?

The ability to claim that science 'demolished' the idea of a purpose in nature....an idea which is echoed in first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ and, in fact, consistent with many religions.

a. In the words of twentieth century evolutionist Ernst Mayr, Darwin “replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. … Darwin’s explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary.” Charles Darwin: Reluctant Revolutionary


b. Atheism. This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
The Schwarz Report | Essays




Darwin, Marx, atheism, secularism......indivisible.

It's not an exercise in science to try to dismiss facts because they might support atheism.

That constitutes a logical fallacy:

Description of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

The Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief is a fallacy that comes in the following patterns:


X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.

X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.

X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.

X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.

I wish that X were true, therefore X is true. This is known as Wishful Thinking.

I wish that X were false, therefore X is false. This is known as Wishful Thinking.

Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

Politics isn't philosophy though.

People will often assert/deny beliefs because the mere assertion/denial of the belief leads to the consequences which imply it.

For example, say A leads to B.

However, people have to believe in A for A to happen.

Therefore, if people don't want B to happen, then they just have to deny A.

In turn, B never happens because A is denied.

The goal of politics is to advocate self-interest by overloading or polluting attention span, not to simply use attention span logically.

 

[Unkotare]

The above is actually more like lighting hundreds of candles, if people will do what I suggest.

You seem to have a very oddly high opinion of yourself. Nobody in the real world is going to hear about or implement any of the juvenile shit you keep posting here. Nobody cares what you "suggest." You need to calm down, learn something, and live a little life before dispensing so much unwanted 'advice' and 'guidance,' kid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And, if Darwin's theory is without proof.....why is it so prominently taught in science classes......?



1. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.


2. . What did Marx see in Darwin that he found entrancing?

The ability to claim that science 'demolished' the idea of a purpose in nature....an idea which is echoed in first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ and, in fact, consistent with many religions.

a. In the words of twentieth century evolutionist Ernst Mayr, Darwin “replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. … Darwin’s explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary.” Charles Darwin: Reluctant Revolutionary


b. Atheism. This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
The Schwarz Report | Essays




Darwin, Marx, atheism, secularism......indivisible.

It's not an exercise in science to try to dismiss facts because they might support atheism.

That constitutes a logical fallacy:

Description of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

The Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief is a fallacy that comes in the following patterns:


X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.

X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.

X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.

X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.

I wish that X were true, therefore X is true. This is known as Wishful Thinking.

I wish that X were false, therefore X is false. This is known as Wishful Thinking.

Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

Politics isn't philosophy though.

People will often assert/deny beliefs because the mere assertion/denial of the belief leads to the consequences which imply it.

For example, say A leads to B.

However, people have to believe in A for A to happen.

Therefore, if people don't want B to happen, then they just have to deny A.

In turn, B never happens because A is denied.

The goal of politics is to advocate self-interest by overloading or polluting attention span, not to simply use attention span logically.

I'm talking about the other poster's statement:

"Darwin, Marx, atheism, secularism......indivisible"

 

[NYcarbineer]

There's a name for what the author of this thread believes in, or at least leans toward:

Theistic Science

Theistic science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Whereisup]

"the leaders who are promoting the idea that Darwin's theory has no proof..."

No....this has nothing to do with the Church.


It is scientists who have testified to the vacancy of Darwin's theory.


While Darwin's theory posits gradual change due to the accumulation of tiny, random mutations, leading to brand new species, having brand new structures, and body organizations.....the fossil record has shown this not to be the case.

In an attempt to rescue Darwin, the most prominent neo-Darwinist, Stephen J. Gould has offered a new theory, the very opposite of Darwin's: Punctuated Equilibrium.

He says:
"The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. It in fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism. […] Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record."
— "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change," The Panda's Thumb: Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1980, pp. 182-184.




Do you understand the 'sleight of hand' he tried to get away with?


Gradual grad·u·al
ˈgrajo͞oəl/Submit
adjective
1.
taking place or progressing slowly or by degrees.


Sudden sud·den
ˈsədn/Submit
adjective
1.
occurring or done quickly and unexpectedly or without warning.



Tell me you find the two terms identical.
You should realize you've been hoodwinked.

Do you really not know the history of this? Long ago, when churches were fighting against the Theory of Evolution, there was the Scopes monkey trial, which you might want to Google. .

More recently, churches adopted a strategy of developing a theory called Creationism, in which the churches tried to pull the wool over people's eyes by pretending to be a science. If you really don't know anything about Creationism, you should Google it. There were never any Creationist research studies which proved Creationism. They merely said that the scientific theory isn't true, so the Bible must be true.

As with many strategies, this has evolved, with new names, and so forth. Notice that not all scientists are honest, and many times, when a few scientists dispute the vast majority in a theory that has been long researched, the reason is that those minority researchers are being paid. For example, remember that tobacco companies directly or indirectly paid scientists to claim that there were no proven health risks of cigarettes, even when there were a vast number of studies which showed bad health effects of smoking.

You are incorrect to think that punctuated evolution is sudden and unexpected. You may have been misled by the fact that more often than not, a scientific definition is different from the definition of a word in a general dictionary. Scientists define words in a technical way which fits into theories, and that is usually different from the definition of a word as used by ordinary people in ordinary conversations. What is meant is that several genes at once are selected for, but that itself is a gradual process as that small GROUP is selected for. And it's not unexpected because the genes that were selected for as a group were in the population previously. A group of mutations developed, which new genes then ended up working well together, so those animals reproduced more than the animals without that group of genes.

So this was not an overturning of evolution. It was merely a new detail about evolution.

It is also part of a more general question some areas of science has been discussing. For example, are geological changes always gradual, or are they sometimes catastrophic?

Religion is often a matter of winning a debate, which is what you are doing.

Science is a matter of constantly trying to find new knowledge, and constantly improving theories. Popper, Karl R. (1981) OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE, Oxford: Clarendon Press, holds that scientific knowledge is a serious of successive approximations to truth, each approximation being closer to truth than the previous one.

In contrast, religions usually don't try to improve their beliefs, although they could, and if they did, the work to improve their beliefs would be a science.

Jim

 

[Unkotare]

"Google it"

What a fuckin' scholar...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you really not know the history of this? Long ago, when churches were fighting against the Theory of Evolution, there was the Scopes monkey trial, which you might want to Google. .

More recently, churches adopted a strategy of developing a theory called Creationism, in which the churches tried to pull the wool over people's eyes by pretending to be a science. If you really don't know anything about Creationism, you should Google it. There were never any Creationist research studies which proved Creationism. They merely said that the scientific theory isn't true, so the Bible must be true.

As with many strategies, this has evolved, with new names, and so forth. Notice that not all scientists are honest, and many times, when a few scientists dispute the vast majority in a theory that has been long researched, the reason is that those minority researchers are being paid. For example, remember that tobacco companies directly or indirectly paid scientists to claim that there were no proven health risks of cigarettes, even when there were a vast number of studies which showed bad health effects of smoking.

You are incorrect to think that punctuated evolution is sudden and unexpected. You may have been misled by the fact that more often than not, a scientific definition is different from the definition of a word in a general dictionary. Scientists define words in a technical way which fits into theories, and that is usually different from the definition of a word as used by ordinary people in ordinary conversations. What is meant is that several genes at once are selected for, but that itself is a gradual process as that small GROUP is selected for. And it's not unexpected because the genes that were selected for as a group were in the population previously. A group of mutations developed, which new genes then ended up working well together, so those animals reproduced more than the animals without that group of genes.

So this was not an overturning of evolution. It was merely a new detail about evolution.

It is also part of a more general question some areas of science has been discussing. For example, are geological changes always gradual, or are they sometimes catastrophic?

Religion is often a matter of winning a debate, which is what you are doing.

Science is a matter of constantly trying to find new knowledge, and constantly improving theories. Popper, Karl R. (1981) OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE, Oxford: Clarendon Press, holds that scientific knowledge is a serious of successive approximations to truth, each approximation being closer to truth than the previous one.

In contrast, religions usually don't try to improve their beliefs, although they could, and if they did, the work to improve their beliefs would be a science.

Jim

Amazing how permanent and indelible the brain washing is.....

....you actually believe that 'sudden' is the same as 'gradual.'

There is no hope.



As for "You are incorrect to think that punctuated evolution is sudden and unexpected."

You're wrong again.

Gould states that his theory begin in 197.
Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age " 1993