Teacher informs students of evolution lies in textbooks

Post Reply New Topic

I agree that pupils should be taught *how* to think and not merely what to think. However, in the context of your opening post in this thread, it seems to me that he has well and truly crossed the line if he is calling accepted science "lies". There is a difference between encouraging analytical thinking skills and presenting students with non-scientific propaganda. As yet you haven't stated what any of these supposed "lies" in the textbooks are, so I can't comment in detail. I strongly disapprove of the "teach the controversy" agenda being used by non-scientists to subvert science classes. There is no controversy. I'd also disapprove if someone was wanting to teach the alternatives that maybe the sun does revolve around the earth or that alchemy can make gold or a myriad of other ideas that are either long disproved or have no evidential basis supporting them.

I have mentioned that I might at least post a list of Hovind's allegations, but I already know I am not qualified to debate them and that has never been my intent here. Nevertheless, some of them have been mentioned and anyone desiring to do so could comment further on any of them.


There certainly is a controversy or we would not be having this discussion, but I do understand what you mean there. Concerning "teach the controversy", however, I know the clear differences between today's AA and the original A.A., but "teach the controversy" is certainly not something I embrace even though I do make specific efforts to inform anyone who might seem interested in at least hearing of the alleged differences.


Same here, but those are straw men in this discussion since those are not matters of historical science such as the actual origin of the sun, gold or whatever.

Just to clarify my statement: 99% of scientists who have studied the biological sciences to any depth acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The remaining 1% typically refuse to accept evolution because they are strongly religious and it conflicts with their strongly held religious world view. Thus there is no controversy. The supposed controversy comes from those who know little or nothing about science who tell the scientists that they've got it wrong. These non-scientists starting point is a strong religious belief that God created all life and is responsible for guiding evolution. ID is a non-scientific idea wrapped around this religious principle. It is these people who declare there is a controversy where there is not. The bottom line is that there is no debating these people anyway, or rather it is pointless, because ID does not provide any credible scientific evidence in support of it, nor does it provide any testable hypotheses expected of scientific theories nor does it provide any physical mechanisms by which it supposedly works. In short it is not science and it falls far short of what might be considered a scientific theory. ID is not qualitatively different to my straw man argument earlier in this thread regarding "Intelligent Lightning" being attributable to Zeus being in a bad mood.

To clarify the situation for leejosepho,
there is no scientific controversy about whether or not evolution is a fact. It is a social and religious controversy, but NOT a scientific one. The evidence is so overwhelming from every branch of science that all point to the same reality that if evolution was not a fact then that would make God into a malicious prankster to plant so much false evidence of so many different types when the price of our being fooled by his deception could be eternal damnation.

And that is where the controversy lies: different denominations of Christianity disagree on whether or not to accept what is demonstrably real. A few centuries ago it was the position of some mainstream churches that the sun travels around the earth, not vice versa. Eventually the weight of evidence convinced them to admit they had been wrong about that. Sooner or later that will happen with evolution too. Already MOST Christians worldwide belong to churches that either accept evolution as a fact or say it doesn't matter to their faith. There are a few fringe cults of fundamentalists who insist otherwise, and they have a tremendous influence on public opinion and public policy. But no matter what they claim the Bible says that will not make the fact of evolution go away.

As for Kent Hovind, no, he does NOT make any good arguments. Everything Kent Hovind puts out in his videos and books has been thoroughly debunked many times. He does NOT do a "good job debunking evolution" or raise any good questions about it. He is a fraud and a liar out to scam people to make money off the gullible sheep who want to hear what he tells them. It wouldn't take you very long to find this out for yourself if you did just a little research on this subject, so long as you check some non-creationist sources. And again, that is what offends me the most about this, that the side that claims the moral high ground on this issue is the side that denies or distorts the truth. Lying for Jesus is still lying.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 10 Mar 2014, 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

^^^
And I'm pretty certain Jesus does not want us to lie.

So for having an complete picture about biology and evolution of earth, I need an priest telling me what the bible says about Genesis. But for installing a toilette, I dont need a priest telling me what the bible says, how god wants me to do a s**t? (Yes, thats actually existing. And nope, it sadly contradicts our todays water-toilettes in the house.)

No, and that is not being suggested here. As close as I might come, the dialogue would be more like between the general contractor, a licensed plumber and a handyman such as myself so you can be sure of a complete picture as to possibilities before the actual work is assigned to the "school" of your own choosing.



If we were talking about whether or not any type or degree of evolution has ever taken place, I do not know anyone who would disagree. However, there is absolutely no way science can prove what you next say:

That is laughable and certainly does not come from any laboratory!


Finding historical evidence proving one or another type or degree of evolution having ever taken place proves nothing whatsoever about "God" or intelligent design.

Why they refuse it is irrelevant to the fact that the controversy exists.

There is no controversy amongst scientists regarding whether evolution exists! How many times do I have to keep repeating myself?

I give up. Lee you keep talking out of your arse. You know f**k all about evolution or science that much is screamingly obvious. I'm done with this thread and your moronic responses.

I wouldn't say it's something absolute, but it's certainly true in this case.

In Christianity though, it can't be considered a sin to find creationism true, or be factually wrong concerning something scientific (which too many people are guilty of if it's of any importance in their lives). I think most will agree that it does become a problem when you try to impose those unscientific and/or pseudo-scientific beliefs on others, though.

That is understood, and I understand there is a certain school or two of scientists who believe, conclude, "acknowledge" (your term) or declare evolution proves itself over any kind of creation or intelligent design. Other scientists, however few, disagree, and there is where we find controversy.

No, it is where you find idiots who know f**k all about science or who refuse to acknowledge reality because it upsets their religious world view. Over and out. I've better things to do with my time than to keep repeating myself to those who have no interest in learning about the subject they keep banging on about.

If that is your opinion, then there is controversy over whether aliens are running the country or not, whether the earth is round or flat, whether or not climate change is happening, whether religious rules/tradition should be part of law, whether homosexuals are human beings, and whether or not a woman can get pregnant if she is forcefully raped.

A few people putting forth their opinions does not a controversy make.

The only controversy is whether or not to mandate the teaching of things that definitely are not science in a science class. Not if the scientific evidence for evolution is true.

This is especially true if as in this case many if not most of those few people will publicly affirm that if the evidence of reality conflicts with their interpretation of a Bronze age text, that it is reality that is wrong and not their interpretation. To have such a closed mind is the opposite of science, yet you will find such "statements of faith" on most if not all creationist web sites. Oh, they may word it differently, but that is exactly what they are saying whether or not they realize it.

There are a few people who still claim (maybe jokingly) that the earth is flat. According to YOUR definitions then leejosepho there is a "controversy" over whether or not the earth is flat and so we should include that possibility in school science textbooks, teach both and let the children decide, right? There is at least as much evidence for evolution (probably more) as there is for the earth not being flat, so where will you draw the line and say that there is a controversy about it?

There are a few nut jobs and liars out there spreading a lot of misinformation (denials, distortions and out and out LIES) about this subject which you and millions like you have swallowed hook line and sinker. As soon as you said you think Kent Hovind is a reliable source of information on this subject you marked yourself as an idiot. I'm sure you mean well. You are just badly misinformed about this. It is curious that we have had this discussion before and you apparently have not learned anything new about this subject in the past couple years, nor apparently from any of the efforts made by me and others in this thread to help you understand it better.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 11 Mar 2014, 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I was actually actually being facetious.