Rick Santorum Urges Teaching Of Creationism In Public Schools

[Jason Spaceman]

From the article:
---------------------------------------------------
Former Pennsylvania Sen. and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum says
the "left" and "scientific community" have monopolized the public school
system's curriculum, only permitting the teaching of evolution and leaving
no room for the introduction of creation-based theories in the classroom.

"There are many on the left and in the scientific community, so to speak,
who are afraid of that discussion because oh my goodness you might mention
the word, God-forbid, 'God' in the classroom, or 'Creator,' that there may
be some things that are inexplainable by nature where there may be, where
it's actually better explained by a Creator, and of course we can't have
that discussion," Santorum said in an editorial interview with the Nashua
Telegraph. "It's very interesting that you have a situation where science
will only allow things in the classroom that are consistent with a non-
Creator idea of how we got here, as if somehow or another that's scientific.
Well maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn't explain
all these things. And if it does point to that, then why don't you pursue
that? But you can't, because it's not science, but if science is pointing
you there how can you say it's not science? It's worth the debate."
-----------------------------------------------------

Read it at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-
creationism_n_1120766.html or http://5z8.info/awesome-real-life-
headshots_q4j6iw_boobs





J. Spaceman

[Greg Guarino]

On 12/1/2011 8:44 AM, Jason Spaceman wrote:
> or http://5z8.info/awesome-real-life-
> headshots_q4j6iw_boobs
>
????

[John Vreeland]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 08:44:16 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notr...@jspaceman.dyndns.info> wrote:

>From the article:
>---------------------------------------------------
>Former Pennsylvania Sen. and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum says
>the "left" and "scientific community" have monopolized the public school
>system's curriculum, only permitting the teaching of evolution and leaving
>no room for the introduction of creation-based theories in the classroom.

So is Michelle Bachmann. I have begun to conclude that she does not
really know anything about anything--not even tax law, which was her
alleged profession--except that she does know how to get the
government to give her lots of money. She seems very good at that.

__
Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!---Sir Walter Scott, Ivanhoe

[Jason Spaceman]

It's from an URL shortening service (www.shadyurl.com) which shortens
your URLs into sleazy, spammy looking links. :-).


J. Spaceman

[Karel]

Allow me to suggest that this not a brilliant idea
on a public forum.

Regards,

Karel

[Mark Buchanan]

On Dec 1, 8:44 am, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.dyndns.info>
wrote:

Another ignorant right-wing politician - nothing new about that.

Mark

[hersheyh]

On Thursday, December 1, 2011 8:44:16 AM UTC-5, Jason Spaceman wrote:
> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Former Pennsylvania Sen. and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum says
> the "left" and "scientific community" have monopolized the public school
> system's curriculum, only permitting the teaching of evolution and leaving
> no room for the introduction of creation-based theories in the classroom.
>
> "There are many on the left and in the scientific community,

Ineresting. Like many Republicans, he seems to think that empirical reality is a leftist plot.
He may be right. How else can he claim, for example, that the U.S. has the best
health care system in the world? Or that there actually is no evidence for global warming?
Or that girls who get the HPV vaccine will instantly become notorious sluts because they won't
have as much risk of dying from cancer? Or that abstinence education works?

[Greg Guarino]

Seems counterproductive. The URL is hardly any shorter, and many people
will figure it for an endless fount of malware and won't click on it.

[Jeffrey Turner]

On 12/1/2011 2:24 PM, hersheyh wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2011 8:44:16 AM UTC-5, Jason Spaceman wrote:
>> From the article:
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Former Pennsylvania Sen. and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum says
>> the "left" and "scientific community" have monopolized the public school
>> system's curriculum, only permitting the teaching of evolution and leaving
>> no room for the introduction of creation-based theories in the classroom.
>>
>> "There are many on the left and in the scientific community,
>
> Ineresting. Like many Republicans, he seems to think that empirical reality is a leftist plot.
> He may be right. How else can he claim, for example, that the U.S. has the best
> health care system in the world? Or that there actually is no evidence for global warming?
> Or that girls who get the HPV vaccine will instantly become notorious sluts because they won't
> have as much risk of dying from cancer? Or that abstinence education works?

Reality is just a theory.

--Jeff

[Ron O]

On Dec 1, 7:44 am, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.dyndns.info>
wrote:

> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Former Pennsylvania Sen. and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum says
> the "left" and "scientific community" have monopolized the public school
> system's curriculum, only permitting the teaching of evolution and leaving
> no room for the introduction of creation-based theories in the classroom.
>
> "There are many on the left and in the scientific community, so to speak,
> who are afraid of that discussion because oh my goodness you might mention
> the word, God-forbid, 'God' in the classroom, or 'Creator,' that there may
> be some things that are inexplainable by nature where there may be, where
> it's actually better explained by a Creator, and of course we can't have
> that discussion," Santorum said in an editorial interview with the Nashua
> Telegraph. "It's very interesting that you have a situation where science
> will only allow things in the classroom that are consistent with a non-
> Creator idea of how we got here, as if somehow or another that's scientific.
> Well maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn't explain
> all these things. And if it does point to that, then why don't you pursue
> that? But you can't, because it's not science, but if science is pointing
> you there how can you say it's not science? It's worth the debate."
> -----------------------------------------------------
>

> Read it athttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-
> creationism_n_1120766.html orhttp://5z8.info/awesome-real-life-
> headshots_q4j6iw_boobs
>
> J. Spaceman

A month ago I dug this up for Nyikos. I found an opinion piece
written by Santorum that demonstrated that he had the bait and switch
run on him by the ID perps along with all the other IDiots during the
Ohio fiasco back in 2002. Santorum claimed to be writing the piece
the day that the Discovery Institute was running the bait and switch
on the Ohio rubes. Santorum was just unaware that the bait and switch
was going to go down. The Ohio IDiots on the State Board of Education
wanted to teach the science of intelligent design, but all they got
from the ID perps was a stupid obfuscation scam that didn't even
mention that ID had ever existed. It is clear from what Santorum is
writing that he is clueless about what is going to go down in Ohio.
Later he was accused of flip flopping when he claimed that he was
against teaching intelligent design and instead was a supporter of the
stupid switch scam. He was just bending over and taking the switch
scam from the same perps that had lied to him about the intelligent
design scam. You can't make this junk up.

I found the link using Wayback.

http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm

QUOTE:
This opposition to intelligent design is surprising since there is an
increasing body of theoretical and scientific evidence that suggests
an alternate theory is possible. Research has shown that the odds
that
even one small protein molecule has been created by chance is 1 in a
billion. Thus, some larger force or intelligence, or what some call
agent causation, seems like a viable cause for creating information
systems such as the coding of DNA. A number of scientists contend
that
alternate theories regarding the origins of the human species -
including that of a greater intelligence - are possible.
Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that
should be taught in science classes.
END QUOTE:

Ron Okimoto

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:24:47 -0800, hersheyh wrote:

> On Thursday, December 1, 2011 8:44:16 AM UTC-5, Jason Spaceman wrote:
>> From the article:
>> --------------------------------------------------- Former Pennsylvania
>> Sen. and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum says the "left" and
>> "scientific community" have monopolized the public school system's
>> curriculum, only permitting the teaching of evolution and leaving no
>> room for the introduction of creation-based theories in the classroom.
>>
>> "There are many on the left and in the scientific community,
>
> Ineresting. Like many Republicans, he seems to think that empirical
> reality is a leftist plot. He may be right. How else can he claim, for
> example, that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world? Or
> that there actually is no evidence for global warming? Or that girls who
> get the HPV vaccine will instantly become notorious sluts because they
> won't have as much risk of dying from cancer? Or that abstinence
> education works?

That's how it always works. Nothing makes a lesson stick like a good, thick
wallop of scaremongering. In the olden days the social stigma of a unwedded
mother would be enough (or even a "scarlet letter"), today you need cancer
and the social stigma of "a slut" (if a woman sleeps with lots of men) or
"a wimp" (if a man fails to sleep with lots of women).

As for empirical reality being a leftist plot, those who prefer ideology over
reality, reality always seems a plot from the opposition and since Santori is
a right-winger, the plot _must_ be a left-wing-one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________
/ I'm meditating on the FORMALDEHYDE and \
| the ASBESTOS leaking into my PERSONAL |
\ SPACE!! /
----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Xavier Onnasis]

Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:jb8ogf$l2k$1...@dont-email.me:

many more people will figure it's a page fulla tits and click
on it immediately...

--

XO

[Frank J]

A "right wing" politician who demands that Johnny get credit for wrong
answers on the test, and that teachers be free to teach what has not
*earned* the right to be taught - all at taxpayers' expense.

>
> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Frank J]

On Dec 1, 8:44 am, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.dyndns.info>
wrote:

> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Former Pennsylvania Sen. and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum says
> the "left" and "scientific community" have monopolized the public school
> system's curriculum, only permitting the teaching of evolution and leaving
> no room for the introduction of creation-based theories in the classroom.
>
> "There are many on the left and in the scientific community, so to speak,
> who are afraid of that discussion

9-10 years ago I wrote that weasel several times, and made it clear
that the scientific community - much of which is politically
conservative, believes in a supreme being and considers it a sin to
bear false witness - is anything but afraid of that "discussion." We
just consider it both misleading, and inappropriate for science class
even if it were not misleading.

It's likely that my letters were never read by him or anyone in a
position to tell him to stop lying (I received 2 "form" letter
replies, but the next 2-3 were unanswered - make of that what you
want). But he must have read other letters like it. Whether he's
mentally incapable of understanting what the average 8th grader can,
or so paranoid that he needs to lie to the "masses," he is unfit for
public office.


(snip)

[Frank J]

> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

That's the classic Santorum article. The title alone indicates that
he's aware that teaching "evolution only" is the *conservative* thing
to do (teaching only what has *earned* the right to be taught) and
thus that his position is that of the "bleeding heart
liberal" (demanding handouts from taxpayers, and "affirmative action"
for pseudoscience). Not only that, he hints that he might not even
find the ID "science" convincing. Which is not surprising since, even
then he had had ample opportunity to read the rebuttals, and his own
Pope's rejection of it. But then and now, he's on a mission to save
the world, and believes that the only way to do that is to get the
"masses" to believe fairy tales:

http://reason.com/archives/1997/07/01/origin-of-the-specious/singlepage

[Harry K]

I wish someone would challenge such idiots to produce a lesson plan to
"teach" what they want.

Harry K

[Frank J]

Depending on how you define "lesson plan" some of the scam artists
have. Though they know better than to include a critical analysis of
alternate "theories", starting with the very inconvenient fact that
they are mutually contradictory.

But note the horrendous double standard of pandering politicians like
Santorum and Bachmann: They will accept a lesson plan *sight unseen*
from scam artists who make careers out of misrepresenting science from
the sidelines, but do not trust ones that are approved by those who
spend decades doing the actual research, and have the most to gain by
actually "proving Darwin wrong!"

And they have the chutzpah to accuse *us* of censorship?!?

[Ron O]

The scientific creationists never produced a public school lesson plan
that included their creation science. The last schtick of the the
scientific creationists was to not mention creation science, but just
claim to want to teach alternatives. To my knowledge they never put
up a public school lesson plan with their scientific creationist
alternatives in it.

The ID perps never produced a public school lesson plan that had
intelligent design in it. There was the Ohio Model lesson plan that
did not mention that intelligent design had ever existed that was
produced with the "help" of the ID perps. One of the sad aspects of
the Ohio lesson plan is that the original draft used Wells' book
"Icons of Evolution," cited it in their references and additional
materials in their first draft, but had to remove the material and the
book and erase all mention of the Discovery Institute because the
information was found to be unreliable. You can still go to the
Discovery Institute's web page and see them claiming to be able to
teach the scientific theory of intelligent design, but none of the
PhDs or education specialists that they have associated with the
Discovery Institute has ever bothered to produce a public school
lesson plan including intelligent design.

It may seem stupid and is obviously dishonest, but the ID perps have
never bothered to put forward a lesson plan that would tell the rubes
exactly what they could teach. Instead what has happened in 100% of
the cases where some IDiot rube has wanted to teach the science of
intelligent design the ID perps have run the bait and switch on the
creationist rubes and only given them the switch scam that doesn't
even mention that ID ever existed. The ID perps tried to run the bait
and switch on the Dover rubes, but the Dover IDiots had already
obtained lawyers willing to test ID in the courts and the rest is
history. Intelligent design was found to be a creationist ploy and
was determined to not be any type of science worth teaching in the
public schools.

That is the reality for creationists and IDiots that still want to
teach the junk. The guys that sell the junk to them are not willing
to put forward what they want to teach in a straightforward and honest
manner because they obviously know that they have nothing worth
teaching.

The Discovery Institute has existed since the mid 1990's. The
Institute of Creation Research and the Creation Research Institute's
have existed since the 1970's. There should be dozens of lesson plans
by this time, and yet the fact is that there are none produced by the
big brains selling the bogus junk. The Answers in Genesis
organization do not have a public school lesson plan. I don't know of
any creationist organizations that advocate teaching the junk with one
that they can give as an example to public school teachers.

A lesson plan is fairly simple. You just state what you want to
teach. You have to state what you want the students to learn from the
lesson and how you are going to evaluate if they learned what you
wanted them to learn. You list the teaching materials that you are
going to use (Textbooks, supplemental materials, power point and or
video presentations etc). You usually have some time frame such as
two lecture periods to cover the topic. It isn't difficult, but none
of the scam artists hawking the bogus ID science or creation science
has ever bothered to do something that would demonstrate that they
actually could teach the junk.

Ron Okimoto

[*Hemidactylus*]

Santorum is an idiot. Science might not have al the facts as to why,
maybe dropped on his head in infancy, but it's worth the debate.

[Karel]

On 3 dec, 00:44, Xavier Onnasis <xavier.onnasis@mule_brokers.com>
wrote:
> Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote innews:jb8ogf$l2k$1...@dont-email.me:

Oh well, survival of the fittest, and all that.

Regards,

Karel

[Frank J]

As you probably know, I had you in mind when I wrote "depends on the
definition." Anti-evolution propaganda would require an extremely
liberal definition of "lesson plan," and that would be the case even
if mainstream science had no disagreement with its claims. The closest
analogy I can think of is a chemistry lesson plan that consisted
exclusively of how Phlogiston theory failed. No chemist in his right
mind would ever approve of that no matter how much he agrees with it.

>
> The ID perps never produced a public school lesson plan that had
> intelligent design in it.  There was the Ohio Model lesson plan that
> did not mention that intelligent design had ever existed that was
> produced with the "help" of the ID perps.  One of the sad aspects of
> the Ohio lesson plan is that the original draft used Wells' book
> "Icons of Evolution," cited it in their references and additional
> materials in their first draft, but had to remove the material and the
> book and erase all mention of the Discovery Institute because the
> information was found to be unreliable.

It would not be unreliable if they included the *refutations* of
Wells' claims. IOW a *real* critical analysis. But they deliberately
*censor* that every time. Of course "reliable" does not necessarily
mean appropriate for science class. But the scam artists would not
dare teach it even where it is appropriate unless they can censor the
refutations.

I know that almost no one agrees with me, but I'm convinced that, by
now "scientific" creationism would resemble the ID scam even if they
had *won* the 1980s court battles. That's because, from the beginning
(when creationism when from "honest, if misinformed belief" to full-
blown pseudoscience) the scam artists knew that they could never
support any alternate "theory" on its own merits. It was always mainly
about bogus "weaknesses" of evolution. They might have had to abandon
their more ambitious claims - young Earth, etc. - even earlier if
enough students, asked for evidence that did not rely on "weaknesses"
of evolution.

[Ron O]

They would not need a liberal definition of a lesson plan if they had
anything worth teaching. A lesson plan is just what it is. If you
have something worth teaching you should be able to say what that is,
how you are going to get the message across to the students and how
you are going to determine if they learned what you want them to
learn. Just because the anti-evolution faction has nothing worth
teaching except the goal to keep the kids as ignorant as possible does
not require a new definition of lesson plan. The current definition
would expose the claptrap for what it is. That is the reason why none
of the anti-evolution factions have a lesson plan with what they want
to teach in it.

Just look at the Ohio Model lesson plan. The authors obviously put
some effort into not saying what they wanted the kids to get out of
the lesson. This was the reason why there wasn't any standard method
for evaluating if the kids learned what they were supposed to learn
because they weren't supposed to learn anything. Where are the short
brief statements about what the students were supposed to learn from
the bogus lessons? How was the teacher supposed to determine if the
kids were learning what they were supposed to be learning? This was a
lesson plan that was approved by the state education board and it was
a pathetic example of a lesson plan.

The links are broken to the old sources, Even the NCSE links are
broken so you can't get the early draft any longer to see the bogus
junk that they had in it. The Discovery Institute's link to the final
draft is also broken, so I can't find a source on the web. I do have
a copy of the final lesson plan in pdf that I downloaded before all
the links went away. If anyone has web links that work they can put
them up so that anyone interested can see what the ID perp switch scam
looks like.

>
>
> > The ID perps never produced a public school lesson plan that had
> > intelligent design in it.  There was the Ohio Model lesson plan that
> > did not mention that intelligent design had ever existed that was
> > produced with the "help" of the ID perps.  One of the sad aspects of
> > the Ohio lesson plan is that the original draft used Wells' book
> > "Icons of Evolution," cited it in their references and additional
> > materials in their first draft, but had to remove the material and the
> > book and erase all mention of the Discovery Institute because the
> > information was found to be unreliable.
>
> It would not be unreliable if they included the *refutations* of
> Wells' claims. IOW a *real* critical analysis. But they deliberately
> *censor* that every time. Of course "reliable" does not necessarily
> mean appropriate for science class. But the scam artists would not
> dare teach it even where it is appropriate unless they can censor the
> refutations.

The ID perp teaching materials would just be shown to be unreliable if
there were an honest presentation of the material. That is a given.
It would not become reliable just because it could be refuted by an
honest and informed teacher. The material would still be bogus. I
don't get your point here. The point of the ID perps producing the
bogus junk is so that an ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest
teacher might teach the junk as if it were reliable. The Ohio rubes
got burned when Meyer ran the bait and switch on them and instead of
giving them the ID science that they claimed to want to teach, and he
only gave them a switch scam that didn't even mention that ID had ever
existed. They were burned a second time when they used Wells' book
"Icons of Evolution" for their lesson plan material and found it to be
unreliable and had to remove it from the early draft and delete all
mention of the book, Wells, and the Discovery Institute from the
lesson plan. As I noted above the first submission and the final used
to be available, but that option seems to no longer be available. Of
course the Discovery Institute only put up the final draft on their
web page, but that link is broken too.

By the 1980's the scientific creationists were about on par with the
current ID perps as to the level of integrity and honesty that they
were exhibiting. I saw Gish give his speel twice and it degenerated
from the first to the second. Even the first "debate" avoided any
mention of what his alternative was and was a litany of the Gish
gallop where he tried to cram as much misinformation as he could into
his presentation.

The second time was a twofer where Gish "debated" and then gave a
similar speel to high school kids. The differences in the
presentations were tragic. He dropped some of his earlier more bogus
arguments from his "debate," but he put some of the bogus junk back in
for his speel to the kids. He should have been more honest with them
because they would have believed anything, but he had to try to get
away with as much as he could and put junk in that he couldn't get
past a more educated audience. I pretty much lost all respect for the
guy at that time. This was the early 1990's. The first speel was
during the Darwin revival of the early 1980's commemorating Darwin's
death a hundred years before. A couple years after the creationist's
tragic defeat in Arkansas.

So by around 1982 the scientific creationists had become prevaricators
like the ID perps. Their only saving grace for making them more
honest than the ID perps is that when it came time to put up or shut
up they didn't run a bogus bait and switch scam on the creationist
rubes like the ID perps did. The scientific creationist went to court
and took their lumps and then faded away.

The ID perps had the chance put up or shut up in Ohio, and dozens of
other places by now, but they ran the bait and switch scam instead.
The only reason why ID had a day in court was because they ran into a
bunch of dishonest and incompetent creationist rubes that had already
obtained "free" legal services by the time the ID perps got involved
(those free services cost the school district a million dollars in
court costs). The Discovery Institute did try to run the bait and
switch, but the Dover rubes would not take the switch scam and decided
to test ID in court. The sad fact is that by Dover the ID perps had
been running the bait and switch scam for nearly 3 years on any rube
stupid enough to have believed them about ID. Dover happened because
the ID perps kept selling the bogus ID scam as if it were legit. If
they had just stopped claiming to be able to teach the junk after Ohio
Dover would not have happened. Instead they kept claiming that they
had the science to teach in the public schools and had to be shown to
be liars and prevaricators.

Anyone can read the judges decision and see why the ID perps have run
the bait and switch on 100% of the creationist rubes that have wanted
to teach the science of intelligent design. You don't do that if you
really have a scientific argument.

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

What is sad, and what Nyikos is currently in denial about is that the
ID perps still claim to be able to teach the bogus ID science on their
current web page. So the bogus scam continues. The bit about
"requiring the teaching" did not show up on the Discovery Institute
web site until a couple years after the Ohio bait and switch scam went
down.

QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching
of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is
nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific
theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes
efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the
scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically
appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:

http://www.discovery.org/a/3164

IDiot rubes like Michele Bachmann (the presidential candidate) will
continue to have the bait and switch run on them whenever they pop up
and claim to want to teach the science of intelligent design. The ID
perps are not running the scam on the science side the ID perps are
running the scam on their own creationist support base. It really
takes some effort to make yourself look worse than the scientific
creationists.

Ron Okimoto

>
> > Ron Okimoto

[Frank J]

(disregard other reply if it got sent)

The big dilemma, which most anti-evolution activists know is a
difficult one, is when to give credit for answers on tests that even
other evolution-deniers consider wrong. It may be easy to grade on
regurgitated rote-memorized "weaknesses" of evolution, but sooner or
later, teachers will be asked such hard questions as "which of these
fossils are humans and which are ape"?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

Whether by following the evidence in context, which they could have
done, *or* by playing favorites, which they *did* do, evolution-
deniers are even futher from convergence than they were 150 years ago.
They have no choice but to constantly backpedal or defer to Genesis.
Both strategies are a *retreat* from science, and even if they
weren't, the fact that they can't agree on basic strategy, let alone a
"theory," is itself an ominous sign. The backpedal, or "don't ask,
don't tell what happened when," strategy is certainly less risky
(since 1987 at least) than the alternative, but it also requires
throwing the Freshwaters, Buckinghams and Bonsells under the bus if
necessary.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Ron O]

This is not the delemma because there is no such public school lesson
plans and it would obviously be a bogus lesson plan that would allow
such teaching and testing to occur. This is the very reason why
there are no lesson plans to teach the controversy or intelligent
design or scientific creationism. Ohio gave up on their model lesson
plan. It didn't have the needed material on how the students would be
evaluated and what they were supposed to learn from the lesson anyway.
Anyone could have checked it out and determined that it was a bogus
lesson plan. What were the students supposed to learn from the moth
example? The claim was that there was some controversy about what the
selective agent was, but that was it. Just the claims. No
alternative was given, no means were supplied to fix the problem (if
it existed) the students were just presented with a perceived problem
and left with it. They were not supposed to learn anything except
that there might be some problems with the moth example. That isn't
education. The initial lesson plan even had the lie about no moths on
tree trunks straight out of Wells' book, so what were the students
supposed to learn from that?

>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

This type of comparison would be in a legitimate lesson plan. It
isn't in any creationist lesson plan in existence for obvious reasons.

>
> Whether by following the evidence in context, which they could have
> done, *or* by playing favorites, which they *did* do, evolution-
> deniers are even futher from convergence than they were 150 years ago.
> They have no choice but to constantly backpedal or defer to Genesis.
> Both strategies are a *retreat* from science, and even if they
> weren't, the fact that they can't agree on basic strategy, let alone a
> "theory," is itself an ominous sign. The backpedal, or "don't ask,
> don't tell what happened when," strategy is certainly less risky
> (since 1987 at least) than the alternative, but it also requires
> throwing the Freshwaters, Buckinghams and Bonsells under the bus if
> necessary.
>

Consistency is not the hallmark of the ID scam artists and creation
scientists. This is another reason why there are no ID or scientific
creationist lesson plans. There is no reason to teach about a global
flood and even the YEC are fudging about whether the earth is 6000
years old, 10,000, less than 20,000, and the ICR had something that
came out after them moved to Texas where the claim of less than 50,000
came up. Their flood geologists can't figure out what are flood
sediments and which rock layers are from after the flood. Just look
at the ID perps. They admit that their most scientific explanation is
that space aliens did the designing. They know that the explanation
that best fits the existing data is that the space aliens messed with
life billions of years ago and possibly diddle farted around with life
on earth until around 400 million years ago and that the absence of
evidence for design for the past 400 million years indicates that the
designers might be extinct or dead by now. Will they put that in
their lesson plan?

You are just putting up the reasons for why there are no creationist
lesson plans and why the creationist scam artists refuse to create
any.

Ron Okimoto


SNIP:

[Harry K]

<snip>

But what would questions about "weaknesses of Evolution", or rather
material in the LP, be doing in a class devdoted to Creation
Theory?. Seems that would expose the fakery as soon as it was tried.

Harry K

[Ron O]

On Dec 1, 7:44 am, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.dyndns.info>
wrote:

> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Former Pennsylvania Sen. and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum says
> the "left" and "scientific community" have monopolized the public school
> system's curriculum, only permitting the teaching of evolution and leaving
> no room for the introduction of creation-based theories in the classroom.
>
> "There are many on the left and in the scientific community, so to speak,
> who are afraid of that discussion because oh my goodness you might mention
> the word, God-forbid, 'God' in the classroom, or 'Creator,' that there may
> be some things that are inexplainable by nature where there may be, where
> it's actually better explained by a Creator, and of course we can't have
> that discussion," Santorum said in an editorial interview with the Nashua
> Telegraph. "It's very interesting that you have a situation where science
> will only allow things in the classroom that are consistent with a non-
> Creator idea of how we got here, as if somehow or another that's scientific.
> Well maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn't explain
> all these things. And if it does point to that, then why don't you pursue
> that? But you can't, because it's not science, but if science is pointing
> you there how can you say it's not science? It's worth the debate."
> -----------------------------------------------------
>

> Read it athttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-
> creationism_n_1120766.html orhttp://5z8.info/awesome-real-life-
> headshots_q4j6iw_boobs
>
> J. Spaceman

I just posted a response to Frank, and I think that we have the same
arguments and just apply them differently.

The most important development with Santorum is that he is trying to
give up on the bogus creationist scams. He was an IDiot supporter of
the ID scam, but going to the link and reading the article and
listening to the video clip it is apparent that he is taking great
pains to distance himself from the ID scam and is going the more
honest route and calling it just what it is. "Creationism" is what he
wants taught.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_1120766.html

This is a major step forward for someone that has been as dishonest
about this whole mess as Santorum obviously has been in the past.

He still misrepresents the science, but ignorance and incompetence can
be excuses. He is no longer lying about what he wants taught. I had
expected this tactic to become more prevalent than it has become once
the ID perps started to run the bait and switch on their own
creationist support base. There really was no point in continuing to
pretend after that, but it has taken Santorum nearly a decade to drop
the dishonest pretense and admit to what he wanted to teach from the
very beginning after having been run over by the ID perps' bait and
switch scam back in 2002. Instead he continued to support the ID
perps' scams until Dover blew up in his home state in his reelection
year and he had to look like he was flip flopping on the issue when he
claimed that the did not support teaching intelligent design in the
public schools. He was only bending over and taking the switch scam
from the guys that had lied to him about the ID scam.

My guess is that this strategy is going to become more prevalent.
There really isn't any reason to keep lying about what they want to
teach because ID and scientific creationism are obviously so bogus
that it doesn't matter any more. No honest court is going to support
any bogus claims about intelligent design or scientific creationism.

Straight up confrontations are easier for the science side to deal
with, but public opinion obviously has nothing to do with the validity
of any of the bogus creationist science. The courts are public
institutions. The argument in the future will have even less to do
with the science. Educators will have to deal with this change. It
is more difficult than fighting the bogus scams.

For the last decade the science side hasn't had to do very much
because the ID perps have been the ones to kill any notions about
teaching creationist junk in the public schools. Just look what the
Discovery Institute did in Louisiana and Texas in the past year. The
creationist faction do not listen to the science side, but they
obviously listen to the ID perps when the bait and switch goes down.
The rubes either drop the issue or take up the switch scam. In recent
years there haven't been any rubes that have taken the switch scam
that I know of. Florida was the last big bait and switch fiasco and
they dropped the issue. Over half a dozen county school boards and
the state legislature wanted to teach the science of intelligent
design and none of them took the switch scam from the ID perps. This
could mean that the switch scam is pretty much dead too. What court
isn't going to notice that the same guys that perpetrated the ID scam
are running the switch scam? Judge Jones made that point clear in his
Dover decision.

Santorum's current tactic may be the future. My guess is that it will
be more difficult to deal with than the dishonest creationist scams.
The courts are public institutions and the thing that the creationist
scam artists have run into is that if you lie nothing really changes
even if you can get by with the lie. Texas and Louisiana are stuck
with their lies about what they want taught and the first chance both
states got to use the laws, or education guidelines, they didn't stick
with the lies, but tried to get their bogus creation science into the
schools. Both efforts were opposed by the ID perps and my guess is
that when the guys that sold you the bull pucky tell you that it is a
bad idea to go through with the fiasco that is the only reason that
the creationist failed when they had supportive boards. Now, if they
tell the truth they can ram that as far as it will go and keep on it
until they get tired of beating their heads against the wall or the
composition of the courts change enough to agree with them.

What are going to be the arguments when there is an obvious disregard
for the science? The past ploys of scientific creationism and
intelligent design, at least, pretended that there was some science to
teach.

Ron Okimoto

[Nick Keighley]

On Dec 1, 1:44 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.dyndns.info>

wrote:
> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Former Pennsylvania Sen. and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum says
> the "left" and "scientific community" have monopolized the public school
> system's curriculum, only permitting the teaching of evolution and leaving
> no room for the introduction of creation-based theories in the classroom.

to me it doesn't seem odd that the "scientific community" has a major
say in what is taught in science classes. We apply a similar rule to
other subjects.

Personnally I have objection to genesis (or any other creation myth)
being taught in a religious eduacation class or philosophy or
whatever. I also understand that some countries have constitional
issues with the teaching of religion in schools.

The difficulty that Mr Santorum has is that we should be teaching non-
science in science classes. Should we teach alternative geography
theories in geography classes? Flat earth? Cylindrical earth? Mobius
Strip earth. Some sort of Generalised Manifold earth?

> "There are many on the left and in the scientific community, so to speak,
> who are afraid of that discussion because oh my goodness you might mention
> the word, God-forbid, 'God' in the classroom, or 'Creator,' that there may
> be some things that are inexplainable by nature

and yet evolutionary biology seems to explain quite a lot of things.
Perhaps when people like Mr Santorum can demonstrate that some things
are scientifically inexplicable we'll get back to him.

People used to believe thunder was caused by gods and the planets were
pushed around by angels. Do we want to go back there? Rememeber infant
mortality was pretty crap in those communities. Take a walk round an
old grave yard. Count children. Count young women.

> where there may be, where
> it's actually better explained by a Creator, and of course we can't have
> that discussion," Santorum said in an editorial interview with the Nashua
> Telegraph. "It's very interesting that you have a situation where science
> will only allow things in the classroom that are consistent with a non-
> Creator idea of how we got here, as if somehow or another that's scientific.
> Well maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn't explain
> all these things. And if it does point to that, then why don't you pursue
> that? But you can't, because it's not science, but if science is pointing
> you there how can you say it's not science? It's worth the debate."

what science is pointing out a creation based explanation for the
diversity of life.

[Frank J]

But it would be an ideal lesson if there were a legitimate
controversy, and the scam artists know it.

BTW, technically, all those fossils are "human" in the sense of being
on our side of the split that diverged us from other *extant* species.
But of course that's not what those creationists mean.

>  This is the very reason why
> there are no lesson plans to teach the controversy or intelligent
> design or scientific creationism.  Ohio gave up on their model lesson
> plan.  It didn't have the needed material on how the students would be
> evaluated and what they were supposed to learn from the lesson anyway.
> Anyone could have checked it out and determined that it was a bogus
> lesson plan.  What were the students supposed to learn from the moth
> example?  The claim was that there was some controversy about what the
> selective agent was, but that was it.  Just the claims.  No
> alternative was given, no means were supplied to fix the problem (if
> it existed) the students were just presented with a perceived problem
> and left with it.  They were not supposed to learn anything except
> that there might be some problems with the moth example.  That isn't
> education.  The initial lesson plan even had the lie about no moths on
> tree trunks straight out of Wells' book, so what were the students
> supposed to learn from that?
>
>
>
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html
>
> This type of comparison would be in a legitimate lesson plan.  It
> isn't in any creationist lesson plan in existence for obvious reasons.
>

That's what I mean. Except that the reasons may be obvious to us, but
not to most students or their parents, regardless of which side of the
"debate" they're on - or on the fence as many are.

I just wrote a long post that touches on that.

>
> You are just putting up the reasons for why there are no creationist
> lesson plans and why the creationist scam artists refuse to create
> any.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

> SNIP:- Hide quoted text -

[AGWFacts]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 08:44:16 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notr...@jspaceman.dyndns.info> wrote:

> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Former Pennsylvania Sen. and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum says
> the "left" and "scientific community" have monopolized the public school
> system's curriculum, only permitting the teaching of evolution and leaving
> no room for the introduction of creation-based theories in the classroom.

He means Creationism, not "creation-based theories." There are
very few creation-based theories, and they are already taught in
public schools.

One of the Diebold and Global Election Systems employees who
testified in front of Congress about the year 2000 election
balloting fraud stated under oath that it was Rick Santorum who
paid him to rig the machines. Now Santorum wants to be president?
Fcking amazing.


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[Toni Keskitalo]

AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> writes:
[Rick Santorum...]

> He means Creationism, not "creation-based theories." There are very
> few creation-based theories, and they are already taught in public
> schools.
>
> One of the Diebold and Global Election Systems employees who testified
> in front of Congress about the year 2000 election balloting fraud
> stated under oath that it was Rick Santorum who paid him to rig the
> machines. Now Santorum wants to be president? Fcking amazing.

Well, Diebold can help with that...

Toni

[AGWFacts]

Diebold and GES both claim it's no longer possible to rig their
machines. But the University of Virginia showed it's still
possible using a screw driver. The Russian delagate to the United
Nations who was sent to observe the American election said it was
the worse case of balloting fraud he's seen in 22 years---- which
would have been funny if it wasn't so un-funny.

[Friar Broccoli]

On 2011-12-07 00:44, AGWFacts wrote:

> One of the Diebold and Global Election Systems employees who
> testified in front of Congress about the year 2000 election
> balloting fraud stated under oath that it was Rick Santorum who
> paid him to rig the machines.

Do you have a source for this claim?

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Frank J]

On Dec 7, 12:44 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 08:44:16 -0500, Jason Spaceman
>

> <notrea...@jspaceman.dyndns.info> wrote:
> > From the article:
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Former Pennsylvania Sen. and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum says
> > the "left" and "scientific community" have monopolized the public school
> > system's curriculum, only permitting the teaching of evolution and leaving
> > no room for the introduction of creation-based theories in the classroom.
>
> He means Creationism, not "creation-based theories." There are
> very few creation-based theories, and they are already taught in
> public schools.

I realize that words have multiple meanings (which anti-evolution
activists exploit at every opportunity), but what is an example of a
"creation-based theory" that is taught?

As for theories specific for the origin of species, there is one
creation-*accommodating* theory, and that's evolution. Of course I
mean "creation" in the general sense, not any specific account. The
alternatives (various forms of creationism) also accommodate creation,
in general and specific senses, but they're not theories.

>
> One of the Diebold and Global Election Systems employees who
> testified in front of Congress about the year 2000 election
> balloting fraud stated under oath that it was Rick Santorum who
> paid him to rig the machines. Now Santorum wants to be president?
> Fcking amazing.

Not that I have any reason to doubt that, but can you point me to a
reference? I'm surprised that I have't heard of that in all these
years.

>
> --
> "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...  and CO2 levels

> to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- caton...@sympatico.ca