Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Clinton was a whore

In more ways than one.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Not Me
If by capitalist you mean he saw an opportunity to make money by renting out the Lincoln bedroom, then yes.

I see a distinction between inviting your friends and campaign fund raisers to sleep over at the white house and raising campaign funds by charging someone to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom.

What did Clinton do that amounted to "charging", beyond the logical quid pro quo of rewarding donors with the opportunity to sleep in the WH? Did he slide a bill under the door during the night?

Or is the difference that these are Bush's "friends"?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
They want to teach something that is contrary to evolution. The kind of creationism you are talking about is nothing more than a religious belief that has no place in public schools.

do you know this? the article just says it seeks to challenge whether evolution is sound. that's nothing more than Hank's posts from this board, and you better believe the average high schooler would benefit from reading my compiled works.

I could understand that it would be implimented by creationists, and I could understand why that would raise fears of a creationist agenda; do you know that it specifically mentions god?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't want religion taught. But to definitively say that our universe was created by the big-bank/evolution is not beyond debate. Does anybody really have a problem with a discussion where both views are laid out, assuming we could trust the teachers?

This answers the "how we are hear question." I think I agree with most of you that the "why" question should be reserved to the home/church/temple/mosk.

I have a problem with the teachers teaching something that is based entirely on supposition and that there is no evidence to back up in a science class. There is simply no evidence that a god created the earth and human life. In a philosophy class, well, all that shit is made up so why not through god into the mix.

The whole intelligent design theory is nothing more than conjecture - life is complex therefore there must be a god. In contrast, there is quite a bit of evidence to support evolution.

Like I said in my previous post, biological life forms are complex. However most people are stupid, therefore they believe that there must be a god because life is too complex for them to understand.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you know this? the article just says it seeks to challenge whether evolution is sound. that's nothing more than Hank's posts from this board, and you better believe the average high schooler would benefit from reading my compiled works.

I could understand that it would be implimented by creationists, and I could understand why that would raise fears of a creationist agenda; do you know that it specifically mentions god?

The creationists who get exercised about these issues have religious views that contradict evolution. For example, Young Earth creationists believe that the Earth was created quite recently, much more so that scientists believe. These people often try to keep public schools from teaching evolution at all, recognizing -- as a tactical matter -- that courts will not let public schools teach that which they would want to have taught.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
So Clinton was a whore, but Bush is just a slut?

bush invites people who have done things in the past such that Bush would like them to sleep there- think relationship.

billy said if you give me money then you can sleep there, or have secret military missile technology- think prostitute.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you know that it specifically mentions god?

The article stated it specifically mentions a higher being.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The creationists who get exercised about these issues have religious views that contradict evolution. For example, Young Earth creationists believe that the Earth was created quite recently, much more so that scientists believe. These people often try to keep public schools from teaching evolution at all, recognizing -- as a tactical matter -- that courts will not let public schools teach that which they would want to have taught.

I'm not redoing my argument- Atticus says I can't till May at the earliest- but your answer points to general fears, I was asking specific facts- do yuo know whats in the approved curriculem? If its simply "there are some big ass questions in evolution" is that so very wrong?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do yuo know whats in the approved curriculem?

The article stated that the "intelligent design" theory is that life is too complex to have happened by chance therefore there must be a higher being who created it.

So they are going to teach how complex life is and instead of trying to understand and explain the mechanism by which that complexity evolved, they are just going to throw their hand up in the air and say the complexity proves the existence of God.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm not redoing my argument- Atticus says I can't till May at the earliest- but your answer points to general fears, I was asking specific facts- do yuo know whats in the approved curriculem? If its simply "there are some big ass questions in evolution" is that so very wrong?

How far do you take the "evolution isn't completely proved" argument, though? There are many things that we don't understand about quantum mechanics, but what we think we know so far is consistent with lab observations, and we certainly don't hesitate to teach this as a hard science. You reach a certain point in a theoretical construct where it becomes clear that, while you are still working out details, you have happened upon a valid framework. I think that evolution is at that point, at least. I know that I would vehemently protest the teaching of some model of subatomic theory that conflicted with qm but that was offered because it didn't conflict with someone's religious/philosophical views - and that, to me, is the entire basis for the push for the various creationist theories.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
I was thinking that, if the next phase isn't rushed, this was well-timed, as it starts the perception of local rule sooner rather than later, even though very little is actually decided at this point. It takes it more out of the "occupation" stage when they start doing things like establishing constitutions, even temporary ones.

It certainly has the surface feel of self rule, but I keep coming back to the fact that this was a document drafted by people appointed by the occupying authority. It seems funny to then say that it is a step away from the occupation stage.

Sistani's proven he's got the ear of a lot of folks in that country, and he's telling them all that this isn't self-rule until the elections come. And after all the wrangling over the charter provisions seen to be the Kurds' veto power, I'm sure they won't feel like they're governing themselves until the ink is dry on the real constitution.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
How far do you take the "evolution isn't completely proved" argument, though? There are many things that we don't understand about quantum mechanics, but what we think we know so far is consistent with lab observations, and we certainly don't hesitate to teach this as a hard science. You reach a certain point in a theoretical construct where it becomes clear that, while you are still working out details, you have happened upon a valid framework. I think that evolution is at that point, at least. I know that I would vehemently protest the teaching of some model of subatomic theory that conflicted with qm but that was offered because it didn't conflict with someone's religious/philosophical views - and that, to me, is the entire basis for the push for the various creationist theories.

Hank, I don't know what those specific creationists want. I was referring to those folks generally, not specifically. I agree with bilmore's post here. The opposition to evolution arises out of religious principle, not science. There are aspects of evolution that are unsettled or controversial, but these are not usually the sorts of things that get taught to high school students.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
How far do you take the "evolution isn't completely proved" argument, though?

Can anyone point to any evidence that contradicts evolution?

Note I said evidence. For instance, are there any experiments that have ever been done that showed the fittest don't survive to pass on their genes? Or even a biological observation. Got any of those you can point to that are inconsistent with evolution?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
How far do you take the "evolution isn't completely proved" argument, though? There are many things that we don't understand about quantum mechanics, but what we think we know so far is consistent with lab observations, and we certainly don't hesitate to teach this as a hard science. You reach a certain point in a theoretical construct where it becomes clear that, while you are still working out details, you have happened upon a valid framework. I think that evolution is at that point, at least. I know that I would vehemently protest the teaching of some model of subatomic theory that conflicted with qm but that was offered because it didn't conflict with someone's religious/philosophical views - and that, to me, is the entire basis for the push for the various creationist theories.

1 I'm sure that the people who pushed have the motive of teaching creationism, and maybe that alone makes it bad. Not Me, the article doesn't say the curriculem teaches creationism, does it- i know the article talks about creationism.
2 As to when do yuo stop throwing out questions, I would be happy with never. what's wrong with ending the science chapter on quantum mechanics by saying "here's some stuff that doesn't, or isn't explained yet."
That is part of the scientific process.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
There are aspects of evolution that are unsettled or controversial

I am curious to know what those are. This is a scientific area I am particularly well versed in and I would be very interested in understanding what is unsettled in evolutionary biology?