Meet the Creationist Helping to Change Arizona School Standards on Evolution

[Waddy]

"Taught" can be many things. I think you have to acknowledge and address what kids are aware of and often asking about. And for over 30+ years, that's exactly what I did every school term. I explained that evolution is just a theory, but backed by quite a bit of evidence, but there are other theories out there, like creationism and intelligent design. Those theories don't have much support in the scientific community but there are lots of people who do support those theories. I was never afraid to discuss any issue, no matter what the school board might say. What I detest is limiting academic inquiry.

 

[AGENT J]

Your post gives the impression that there is a sizeable percentage of conservative atheists who are running for office.

i have no idea how it does that unless you are claiming all or most religious people think the same way the loon in the OP does, and if thats the case then that logic would have to claim the majority of democrats are the same way also. WHich also is not true.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

"Taught" can be many things. I think you have to acknowledge and address what kids are aware of and often asking about. And for over 30+ years, that's exactly what I did every school term. I explained that evolution is just a theory, but backed by quite a bit of evidence, but there are other theories out there, like creationism and intelligent design. Those theories don't have much support in the scientific community but there are lots of people who do support those theories. I was never afraid to discuss any issue, no matter what the school board might say. What I detest is limiting academic inquiry.

A. Creationism and ID are the same thing.
B. "Lots of people who do support them" is meaningless in terms of science.

 

[Hatuey]

i have no idea how it does that unless you are claiming all or most religious people think the same way the loon in the OP does, and if thats the case then that logic would have to claim the majority of democrats are the same way also. WHich also is not true.

No I am simply saying that you make it look as if there is a sizeable percentage that don't agree with the creationist story, and a sizeable that do. Really interested to see why you'd believe there is such a diverse religious rainbow when it comes to creationism on the right.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[poweRob]

LMAO sweet irony . . please tell me more about this comprehension you speak of :lamo

thank you for posting the prove that you grouped all conservatives together

again based on the rules of English and the definitions of words you factually did.
Fact remains you said the loon in the OP this another reason to not vote conservative. so this loon has to represent all conservatives and conservative values or your statement doesn't make sense.... if you disagree prove otherwise.... you may not have meant to say it but its what your op says.

if you didnt mean all conservatives you would have to say another reasons not to vote for THIS or THAT conservative . .you said conservative . .which would mean the group. Facts prove you wrong.

these are your options:
A.) post with integrity and honesty and admit you misspoke and you didnt mean to say what you actually said
B.) continue to lie or show ignorance and deny what you said while i continue to destroy each of your false claims and point out the fact of what the OP says in plain English

your choice

Here is what I actually said. No all conservatives. No sweeping notion like you are inventing.

One more reason not to vote conservative.

But I see you are going to keep at your nonsense no matter the facts. I'm sure there is a fence post you can argue with somewhere that will listen the whole time. I'm sure it will be enthralled to hear about your version of what you call integrity. Because human aren't going to buy it.

 

[Waddy]

A. Creationism and ID are the same thing.
B. "Lots of people who do support them" is meaningless in terms of science.

You are correct, but those ideas do exist and many students are aware of them and have questions. To pretend they don't exist and refuse to discuss them in class makes it look like you're hiding something. Better to have all ideas out in the open, discuss them on their merits, or lack of, and allow students to reach their own conclusions. Above all, academia should be a market place of competing ideas, where the best win out based on their merits. To refuse to allow those discussions to take place you create dogma out of even the best ideas. And much as you might like to control what students are exposed to, or think about, or question, you just don't have that kind of mind control.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

You are correct, but those ideas do exist and many students are aware of them and have questions. To pretend they don't exist and refuse to discuss them in class makes it look like you're hiding something. Better to have all ideas out in the open, discuss them on their merits, or lack of, and allow students to reach their own conclusions. Above all, academia should be a market place of competing ideas, where the best win out based on their merits. To refuse to allow those discussions to take place you create dogma out of even the best ideas. And much as you might like to control what students are exposed to, or think about, or question, you just don't have that kind of mind control.

Fine, but discuss them in a religion class.

They have absolutely ZERO business in a science class.

 

[AGENT J]

No I am simply saying that you make it look as if there is a sizeable percentage that don't agree with the creationist story, and a sizeable that do. Really interested to see why you'd believe there is such a diverse religious rainbow when it comes to creationism on the right.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

again not what i said :shrug:

 

[AGENT J]

Here is what I actually said. No all conservatives. No sweeping notion like you are inventing.



But I see you are going to keep at your nonsense no matter the facts. I'm sure there is a fence post you can argue with somewhere that will listen the whole time. I'm sure it will be enthralled to hear about your version of what you call integrity. Because human aren't going to buy it.

SO you choose to deny facts and continue your lie, awesome! LMAO

again based on the rules of English and the definitions of words you factually did.
Fact remains you said the loon in the OP this another reason to not vote conservative. so this loon has to represent all conservatives and conservative values or your statement doesn't make sense.... if you disagree prove otherwise.... you may not have meant to say it but its what your op says.

if you didnt mean all conservatives you would have to say another reasons not to vote for THIS or THAT conservative . .you said conservative . .which would mean the group. Facts prove you wrong.

these are your options:
A.) post with integrity and honesty and admit you misspoke and you didnt mean to say what you actually said
B.) continue to lie or show ignorance and deny what you said while i continue to destroy each of your false claims and point out the fact of what the OP says in plain English

will you triple down on your false claim? lets see?

 

[iguanaman]

"He argued that scientific evidence supports his creationist ideas, including the claims that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs were on board Noah's Ark."

Oh good, there goes the education in Arizona. Sigh...

There are living plants that are twice the age of the Earth then.

I drive out a rutted dirt road south of Barstow, Calif., in search of "King Clone," a creosote bush identified as the oldest living thing on Earth. Said to be 11,700 years old, that makes it centuries older than the redwoods and bristlecone pines we usually think of as elders. What's more startling: I'm miles deep into the dusty dirt-bike and dune-buggy playground known as the Johnson Valley Off-Road Vehicle Recreation Area.

https://www.hcn.org/issues/224/11165

 

[Waddy]

Fine, but discuss them in a religion class.

They have absolutely ZERO business in a science class.

Baloney...I do not believe public schools even have religion classes. Yes, discussing popular theories, no matter their origin, or the evidence backing them, just makes common sense, if students are questioning. If I am lecturing on evolution and a student says, but what about intelligent design, I will not ignore or shame him/her. I will say, let's look at the merits of intelligent design; what evidence is there to back up that idea. Then we would discuss all the various ideas surrounding human origins, and let the competing ideas sort themselves out. I don't want to teach them WHAT to think, as you obviously do, I want to teach them HOW to think. You can't teach that by force feeding them one idea, even if it is the correct one. They need to know WHY it's the correct idea, and that only happens when you are free to discuss all the incorrect ideas.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Baloney...I do not believe public schools even have religion classes.

Irrelevant. They can always offer a comparative religion class if they so choose.

Yes, discussing popular theories, no matter their origin, or the evidence backing them, just makes common sense, if students are questioning.

There is absolutely no evidence, of any kind, whatsoever, that backs up Creationism.

If I am lecturing on evolution and a student says, but what about intelligent design, I will not ignore or shame him/her. I will say, let's look at the merits of intelligent design; what evidence is there to back up that idea. Then we would discuss all the various ideas surrounding human origins, and let the competing ideas sort themselves out. I don't want to teach them WHAT to think, as you obviously do, I want to teach them HOW to think. You can't teach that by force feeding them one idea, even if it is the correct one. They need to know WHY it's the correct idea, and that only happens when you are free to discuss all the incorrect ideas.

Creationism/ID have no place in a science class since they are not based in science and irrelevant to science. Science does not address theological issues.

This is really basic stuff. I simply don't believe you are or ever were a teacher.

 

[Hatuey]

again not what i said :shrug:

So then we agree that there is little diversity in the conservative view as it pertains to creationism?

 

[AGENT J]

So then we agree that there is little diversity in the conservative view as it pertains to creationism?

no we do not agree because i dont even know what you are asking or trying to conclude I only know it seems to have nothing to do with my post or anything i said.

 

[AGENT J]

no we do not agree because i dont even know what you are asking or trying to conclude I only know it seems to have nothing to do with my post or anything i said.

this is my post

LMAO sweet irony . . please tell me more about this comprehension you speak of :lamo

thank you for posting the prove that you grouped all conservatives together

again based on the rules of English and the definitions of words you factually did.
Fact remains you said the loon in the OP this another reason to not vote conservative. so this loon has to represent all conservatives and conservative values or your statement doesn't make sense.... if you disagree prove otherwise.... you may not have meant to say it but its what your op says.

if you didnt mean all conservatives you would have to say another reasons not to vote for THIS or THAT conservative . .you said conservative . .which would mean the group. Facts prove you wrong.

these are your options:
A.) post with integrity and honesty and admit you misspoke and you didnt mean to say what you actually said
B.) continue to lie or show ignorance and deny what you said while i continue to destroy each of your false claims and point out the fact of what the OP says in plain English

your choice

do you have a question on anything i actually said?

 

[poweRob]

SO you choose to deny facts and continue your lie, awesome! LMAO

again based on the rules of English and the definitions of words you factually did.
Fact remains you said the loon in the OP this another reason to not vote conservative. so this loon has to represent all conservatives and conservative values or your statement doesn't make sense.... if you disagree prove otherwise.... you may not have meant to say it but its what your op says.

if you didnt mean all conservatives you would have to say another reasons not to vote for THIS or THAT conservative . .you said conservative . .which would mean the group. Facts prove you wrong.

these are your options:
A.) post with integrity and honesty and admit you misspoke and you didnt mean to say what you actually said
B.) continue to lie or show ignorance and deny what you said while i continue to destroy each of your false claims and point out the fact of what the OP says in plain English

will you triple down on your false claim? lets see?

I'll let this guy reply for me:

again not what i said :shrug:

You don't have to lie to have friends j. So why are you lying?

 

[AGENT J]

I'll let this guy reply for me:



You don't have to lie to have friends j. So why are you lying?

LMAO
Facts, definitions, OP and English > than your lies
if you didnt mean all conservatives you shouldnt have said that and your post makes no logical sense as constructed.

theres nothing you can say that will change the facts you were caught posting lies. If you would like me to further prove you factually wrong and embarrass and destroy your post I gladly will...


here your qoute..

One more reason not to vote conservative.
link left out

based off of facts, definitions and English this means ALL Conservatives if you disagree lets start with a simple question...

why would this be a reason to NOT vote conservative if you only mean this ONE loon?

opcorn2:

 

[JasperL]

Baloney...I do not believe public schools even have religion classes. Yes, discussing popular theories, no matter their origin, or the evidence backing them, just makes common sense, if students are questioning. If I am lecturing on evolution and a student says, but what about intelligent design, I will not ignore or shame him/her. I will say, let's look at the merits of intelligent design; what evidence is there to back up that idea. Then we would discuss all the various ideas surrounding human origins, and let the competing ideas sort themselves out. I don't want to teach them WHAT to think, as you obviously do, I want to teach them HOW to think. You can't teach that by force feeding them one idea, even if it is the correct one. They need to know WHY it's the correct idea, and that only happens when you are free to discuss all the incorrect ideas.

It's hard to judge when we're not privy to the actual discussions, but the problem some of us have is the idea that the broad 'theory' of evolution is presented alongside a legitimately competing 'theory' of creationism or intelligent design. Might as well present the 'theory' of a flat earth, or a theory that the sun orbits the earth.

And the goal of creationist proponents like the guy in the OP is to reduce science class about origins to just that discussion - some people prefer the "theory" of evolution but many others prefer the "theory" of young earth creationism - you, young students, can choose from these equally legitimate theories! If that's the result, the creationist proponents have exactly what they want.

But if the discussion you're referring to comes down to something like this:

Scientific support for the broad theory of evolution ===> all of science, in a dozen major disciplines
Scientific support for the broad theory of creationism ===> none

OK, that's fine. No need to be insulting to young people but that's the science of it. Creationism is religion - the end.

 

[Hatuey]

no we do not agree because i dont even know what you are asking or trying to conclude I only know it seems to have nothing to do with my post or anything i said.

Well, you seem really concerned that not all conservatives have a creationist view, and I agree - they don't agree 100% with the creationist view, but only because of details that are irrelevant to non-creationists. You know, it took millions of years instead of 6K to make humans by a guiding hand that isn't a god but has all of the attributes of.

The overwhelming majority of conservatives have some creationist views which are simply incompatible with what we know about life.

I'm just seeing if the nuance you want to highlight is in fact relevant, or negligible.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[JasperL]

based off of facts, definitions and English this means ALL Conservatives if you disagree lets start with a simple question...

why would this be a reason to NOT vote conservative if you only mean this ONE loon?

I'll take this question - because it's always 'conservatives' that empower this kind of nonsense. I don't know what the outgoing person in the OP believes about evolution or care, but the fact is at least half of self described Christians who attend church weekly believe in young earth creationism, and so conservatives (or Republicans - same thing for this conversation) pander to that viewpoint. More important, even those religious who don't believe in young earth creationism aren't too concerned if it's taught in schools, so if you're trying to win over the evangelicals, taking a 'creationism' approach to public school science isn't very risky, and has a potentially big upside.

So the idea that to vote for Republicans is more likely to support teaching of creationism in schools MUST MEAN that ALL 'conservatives' or Republicans believe in creationism is complete nonsense. Many do, but more important it's Republicans, especially in the South who pander to this viewpoint and what they believe or that many republicans don't believe in young earth creationism isn't relevant.

 

[AGENT J]

Well, you seem really concerned that not all conservatives have a creationist view, and I agree - they don't agree 100% with the creationist view, but only because of details that are irrelevant to non-creationists. You know, it took millions of years instead of 6K to make humans by a guiding hand that isn't a god but has all of the attributes of.

The overwhelming majority of conservatives have some creationist views which are simply incompatible with what we know about life.

I'm just seeing if the nuance you want to highlight is in fact relevant, or negligible.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

so you have not questions about what i actually said...got it, thanks

 

[Hatuey]

so you have not questions about what i actually said...got it, thanks

I do have questions. I just don't have verbal aneurysms when I write, so it might be a little too coherent. Just what do you think the ratio of creationists conservatives is to non-creationist conservatives, that you want to blast a generalized statement about voting for one vs the other?



Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) I'll take this question
2.) - because it's always 'conservatives' that empower this kind of nonsense.
3.) I don't know what the outgoing person in the OP believes about evolution or carebut the fact is at least half of self described Christians who attend church weekly believe in young earth creationism, and so conservatives (or Republicans - same thing for this conversation) pander to that viewpoint. More important, even those religious who don't believe in young earth creationism aren't too concerned if it's taught in schools, so if you're trying to win over the evangelicals, taking a 'creationism' approach to public school science isn't very risky, and has a potentially big upside.

4.) So the idea that to vote for Republicans is more likely to support teaching of creationism in schools MUST MEAN that ALL 'conservatives' or Republicans believe in creationism is complete nonsense.

5.) Many do
6.), but more important it's Republicans, especially in the South who pander to this viewpoint and what they believe or that many republicans don't believe in young earth creationism isn't relevant.

1.) ok shoot!
2.) dont know, maybe but what does that have to do with what i said? fact remains that its not all and i dont know any in real life that would support this, seems like the minority to me. now that i dont know but its certainly NOT a conservative thing as in all... also remember this isnt just about "beliefs" this is also about what people would want forced to be taught in schools.
3.) No that not a fact please dont call things facts that are not, ill will point them out every time. Maybe you didnt mean to use the word AND and you were just referring to the poll but as you wrote it that is NOT a fact.

next you mention Christians. Christians make up majority of democrats. so you again the fact remains its not all republicans and if you are going to paint with a broad brush based on christians (which is also inaccurate and illogical) then its illogical to say conservatives and not democrats since the majority of them are Christians too. that would be intellectually dishonest.

so, so far nothing has changed..... the OP is wrong in its claim labeling this to be all conservatives and its been proven to be illogical, biased, inaccurate and hypocritical to do so

4.) I agree 100% thats why the OP should have never said such nonsense which the OP does.
5.) since many is very subjective i can agree with that
6.) factually wrong, its totally relevant since the claim was made in blanket form and its been proven to be false, biased and hypocritical.

SO here we are in the same place..... its not ALL conservatives or a conservative thing to think like the Loon in the OP and want this forced to be taught in schools. :shrug:

 

[AGENT J]

1.)I do have questions. I just don't have verbal aneurysms when I write, so it might be a little too coherent.
2.) Just what do you think the ratio of creationists conservatives is to non-creationist conservatives, that you want to blast a generalized statement about voting for one vs the other?



Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

1.) LMAO and right on cure here comes the lashing out over your made up assumptions failing and causing them to further fail I love it!
2.) dont know, doesnt matter. all that does matter to what i actually said is...... its not all that want this forced to be taught and i pointed that fact out. if you consider accuracy and facts blasting so be it.
any other triggers, questions or lashing out you wanna do have at it because the facts wont change

 

[Waddy]

Irrelevant. They can always offer a comparative religion class if they so choose.

There is absolutely no evidence, of any kind, whatsoever, that backs up Creationism.

Creationism/ID have no place in a science class since they are not based in science and irrelevant to science. Science does not address theological issues.

This is really basic stuff. I simply don't believe you are or ever were a teacher.

Every topic has a place in a science class, or any other type of class for that matter. Whatever students are interested in, or aware of, or thought about, has a place in the classroom. That's what academia should be about. Let the facts come out and the best idea prevails. That's how science, and everything else, should be taught.