When public-school students enrolled in Texas’ largest charter program open their biology workbooks, they will read that the fossil record is “sketchy.” That evolution is “dogma” and an “unproved theory” with no experimental basis. They will be told that leading scientists dispute the mechanisms of evolution and the age of the Earth. These are all lies.

The more than 17,000 students in the Responsive Education Solutions charter system will learn in their history classes that some residents of the Philippines were “pagans in various levels of civilization.” They’ll read in a history textbook that feminism forced women to turn to the government as a “surrogate husband.”

Responsive Ed has a secular veneer and is funded by public money, but it has been connected from its inception to the creationist movement and to far-right fundamentalists who seek to undermine the separation of church and state.

Infiltrating and subverting the charter-school movement has allowed Responsive Ed to carry out its religious agenda—and it is succeeding. Operating more than 65 campuses in Texas, Arkansas, and Indiana, Responsive Ed receives more than $82 million in taxpayer money annually, and it is expanding, with 20 more Texas campuses opening in 2014.



  1. son of says:

    Organized religion pays NO TAXES. NONE. Neither do the NFL corporations. Is this a great country or what !?!?!?!?

  2. Tim says:

    I bet it still teaches that some dialysis dude in a cave with a laptop stood down NORAD and did 9/11, but all that other crap, while sounding pretty much on the up-and-up, is from the First Creation and y’all creatons aren’t supposed to know about that. Monkey men.

  3. Quivering Quislings quake quantifying querulous questions says:

    “They will be told that leading scientists dispute the mechanisms of evolution and the age of the Earth.” /// Compare and Contrast as you embrass the Horror that is YOU: when these brain washed kiddies grow up some of them will note this BS, but then, ….. be quite happy to argue that “leading scientists dispute the mechanisms of ANTHROPOMORPHIC GLOBAL WARMING and the safety of genetically modified food.

    ………because……….. you know …………. “it just makes sense.”

    ha, ha.

    Silly Hoomans. Like apes in the zoo, except they throw shit on themselves and call it: being skeptical.

  4. Paulie says:

    “Subverting Schools with Creationism…” as opposed to subverting schools with Liberalism/Evolution, as if that were not also a religion, i.e. the religion of the STATE.
    Talk about a takeover of gov indoctrination edu.
    Seeing the reality of the liberal-left (Agenda 21) is enlightening. lol

  5. What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

    The truth is that teaching “facts” is worthless.

    Teach a child how to investigate, how to analyze, and how to say F*** Y** to asinine adults that want to force them to believe patently nonsensical crap.

    (Examples of said adults can be found here)

    Dvorak is right, home school, and if you’ve done a good job, your kids will out preform the kids programmed with nonsense. If you’ve done a poor job, welp, God help those kids because they won’t be able to help themselves.

    • Voice of Reason says:

      It pisses me off that you BOBBO! are correct about teaching a child how to think critically. It’s a skill I see even you are still learning.

      But what you fail to realize is that children are very often wrong. It’s also why society tries to EDUCATE them too. So when we teach them LIES like creationism (a fairy tale that a MAN thought up in a 2000 year old holly book) or even your favorite subject – SOCIALISM, they are ill prepared to deal with a world of FACTS!

      One other thing that you and most of the readers here don’t seem to realize is that when people believe so strongly in something like a religion – or even a political platform – that they will hold true to those beliefs and ignore all reason. They will do this even when presented with clear hard FACTS!

      .. And sometimes, those people think just like YOU do!

  6. Captain Obvious says:

    What was the whooshing sound? That would be more jobs going offshore.

    • No Pardon for Obama's Crimes! says:

      Yea, Obama’s war on the economy had nothing to do with it.

  7. No Pardon for Obama's Crimes! says:

    All the statements are true, Uncle Dave’s allegation they are a lie is unproved, and unprovable.

    Julia for Obama care certainly proved the liberal idea of Government as surrogate husband.

    Fossils exist only in the present, nothing experimental proves evolution, and charter schools graduate people whose critical reasoning skills are developed, and who can read.

    Liberal education, is lucky if 50% of its graduates can read.

    Clearly the Devil baby is Uncle Dave’s offspring, or a close candidate for the honor.

    • So What? says:

      “nothing experimental proves evolution” Yep, your lack of basic science education is showing. Again.

      • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

        Agree.

        • No Pardon for Obama's Crimes! says:

          The loss or defective replication of (dna etc) information is not evolution.

          Prove the information of an organism is evolved.

          • So What? says:

            Cases of observed evolution, as I provided the topic and author(s) I will leave it to you to review the studies.

            Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas), de Vries (1905)
            Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis), Digby (1912), Newton and Pellew (1929)
            Tragopogon, Owenby (1950)
            Raphanobrassica Karpchenko (1927, 1928)
            Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit), (Muntzing 1932)
            Madia citrigracilis, Clausen et al. (1945)
            BrassicaFrandsen, (1943, 1947)
            Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum), Rabe and Haufler (1992)
            Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae), (Butters 1941). (Butters and Tryon 1948)
            Stephanomeira malheurensis, Gottlieb (1973)
            Maize (Zea mays), Pasterniani (1969)
            Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus), (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983)
            Drosophila paulistorum, Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971)
            Drosophila melanogaster, Thoday and Gibson (1962)
            Drosophila melanogaster, Crossley (1974)
            Drosophila melanogaster, Kilias, et al. (1980)
            Drosophila melanogaster, (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990
            Drosophila species, del Solar (1966) Dodd (1989)
            Drosophila melanogaster,(Rice and Hostert 1993) Ehrman (1971) (Ehrman 1973) Koopman (1950)
            Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella), (Prokopy et al. 1988)
            Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis), (Waring et al. 1990)
            Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum), Halliburton and Gall (1981)
            Nereis acuminate, Weinberg, et al. (1992)

            Given your self stated lack of formal science education I add this one, it should be on par with your level of critical thinking skills.

            http://tinyurl.com/q39kk2s

          • So What? says:

            P.S. “The loss or defective replication of (dna etc) information is not evolution.”

            Actually it is.

          • No Pardon for Obama's Crimes! says:

            So What’s list, is lacking true augmentation of DNA information that could be called “evolution”

            Corruption of the existing data is not evolution.

          • So What? says:

            “Corruption of the existing data is not evolution.”-Is your knowledge of science as limited you make it appear?- As I said earlier is evolution. Evolution is the genetic variation in a population that is passed to succeeding populations (William, 1985). Mutation what you describe as “corruption” is the mechanism of genetic variability. This is evolution just as natural selection is evolution (Maitland and Edy, 1990). You are a combination of you parents DNA, yet your DNA contains mutations that neither of your parents had. You may or may not pass these mutations on to your offspring. A mutation is one of three things harmful, useful, or neutral. Any mutation may be expressed or not expressed. Even a harmful mutation such a cycle cell anemia is not always expressed. The gene is only expressed if both parents pass along the recessive gene to their offspring. By the way the cycle cell trait provides the individual and the population a resistance to malaria. A beneficial mutation will also not always be expressed unless environmental factors favor it as a trait. Adaptation is an expression of those genes in a population.

            As I suspected you didn’t bother to look up any of the studies as such you are unable to provide any evidence to refute them. Not that I am surprised. Your history of finger in ears is long and documented. You just went NANANANANANA and posted something you hoped made sense.

            So try these these are not as technically oriented as the previous list.

            Macro evolutionary change in Anolis lizards (Losos et al, 1997)

            Speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, (Stanley,1979)

            Evolution of five new species of cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago. (Mayr, 1970)

            Speciation in action among Larus seagulls. (Liebers et al., 2004)

            New species of Evening Primrose named Oenothera gigas, (De Vires, 1905)

            Evolution of a new multicellular species from unicellular Chlorella, (Boraas et al., 1998)

            A new species of mosquito in London, (Byrne et al., 1999)

            Yeast adapts to a glucose limited environment via gene duplications and natural selection, (Brown et al., 1998)

            Bacteria evolve to eat nylon, (Ohno, 1984)

            E. coli evolves to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose, (Hall and Zuzel 1980)

            E. coli evolves to metabolize propanediol, (Lin and Wu 1984)

            Klebsiella bacteria develop a new metabolic pathway to metabolize 5-carbon sugars, (Hartley, 1984)

            Blowfly Insecticide Resistance, (Newcomb, et al., 1997)

            I am fairly certain you will ignore these as well. Most interesting thing about science is it’s true whether you want to believe it or not.

    • Freemantle A. Silverboard says:

      Alfie do the terms mieosis, mitosis, photosynthesis, DNA, RNA, nucleus, replication, mutation have any meaning to you or is it all over your head?

  8. LibertyLover says:

    My son went to iSchool High for three years, one of the ResponsiveEd schools.

    That may be in the textbooks somewhere, but it isn’t what is taught there. We took our son out of public school and put him there just so he would NOT be taught that. I was heavily involved in what they teach on a daily basis. I’m not sure where they got the information in that BS article from.

    iSchool High is a STEM academy with strong project management training. I judged their science fair one year. I was on their advisory board. The things these kids are learning in that school is beyond amazing. These kids are being well prepared for a future in STEM.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      They are just upset about charter schools in general.

    • Captain Obvious says:

      Charter schools are great. It sounds like you had the sort of experience every parent hopes for. Nice.

    • Captain Obvious says:

      The winner here wasn’t public vs charter vs private. It was that LL took an active interest in his kid’s education. That is why it worked.

    • Dallas says:

      So you approve the school is adopting creationist mythology from the far right fundamentalists?

      I disapprove my tax dollars are paying for that. I demand my money back or use it to build bicycle paths.

      • LibertyLover says:

        You really need to learn to read, Dallas. I didn’t say that at all.

        • Dallas says:

          I saw you were basically dismissing the topic altogether and instead gushing over how great the school is. I simply assumed you were OK with what was brought as a discussion topic.

          • LibertyLover says:

            I weep for my country.

            From my post: “I’m not sure where they got the information in that BS article from.”

            I may have confused you, though. I used an abbreviation. BS means Bullshit. Therefore, I called the article Bullshit.

            If something is BS (that means Bullshit), then it cannot be taken seriously because it is flawed to start with.

            How can I NOT dismiss something that is BS (i.e., Bullshit)?

            Read, dammit! My taxes paid for your education. Fuckin’ use it!

          • Dallas says:

            A Republican calling an article ‘BS’ implies they dislike it. It doesn’t imply they disagree with it.

            For instance, a news article on Chris Christie using his governmental powers to exact punishment is often called a ‘BS’ article.

            For future reference, be more specific about where the pony’s located within the pile of shit story line.

          • LibertyLover says:

            Ah! Now I know why you got everything so bass-ackwards and everyone else understood it.

            You think I’m a Republican and therefore am diametrically opposed to everything you stand for.

            Think outside the square, scooter. There’s more to the world than just R and D.

          • Dallas says:

            If you voted republican the last ten times, you’re a republican . Mmm K

  9. deegee says:

    As someone who sits back and watches both sides flounder in their false beliefs…

    The Evolutionist camp is a moving target on the meaning of the word ‘evolution’. Originally it meant ‘species jumping’ which is how the religious camp understands it, while the evolutionists will use it for anything including minor adaptation depending on how badly they are getting beat in the argument.
    Our modern science has proven that Darwin’s ‘birds with different beaks’ is not ‘evolution’ — both birds have identical DNA and simply have different switches set for the same trait that both birds possess — that is not evolutionary species jumping.

    On the other side: the biblical scriptures do not state that the earth is only 6000 years old. Taking two unrelated scriptures (‘six days of creation’ and ‘a day is as a thousand years’) and trying to use them out of context is not proof of anything.
    The scriptures also say that ‘the length of a man’s life is but a vapor’ to God – which would be around 100 years is 1/2 second, with 518400 seconds in 6 days, so 518400 * 2 * 100 = over 100 million years of our time for the 6 days of creation. And over a billion years of you believe that men used to live to be a thousand years in age.

    • Captain Obvious says:

      Cherry picking both sides. Nicely done.

      • deegee says:

        It is not cherry picking. It is two examples of many.
        I could give you a long long list of false information on both sides. But this is just a blog and not a forum for personal dissertations.

        • Captain Obvious says:

          OK, apple picking.

        • Voice of Reason says:

          Don’t bullshit yourself…

          Oh, forget it! Look who I’m telling.

          Go ahead and live in your own little world of made up facts and iron clad beliefs. Captain Obvious has your number.

          Cherry picking indeed!

    • So What? says:

      Deegee did you go to the same school as alfie?

    • What? The moth is always drawn to the flame? says:

      And why do your “deegee” beliefs matter? What foundation are you building with them?

      You don’t actively make decisions based on the vestigial programming you’ve received. That’s why it is vestigial.

      You probably do add, multiply, divide, and subtract. If you didn’t understand those operations, you’d have real problems.

      The vestigial programming is just another form of entertainment. It keeps your mind buzzed, like a soap opera.

      People are just computers. People are programmed by the memes that are injected by school, the media, parents, etc. It takes thousands of years for a bad meme to die out, and be removed from the installed programs in society’s collective. Memes that don’t matter, live the longest. If our programming couldn’t add numbers consistently, that would be fixed fairly quickly. The “Witch Burning” meme didn’t last that long, for example.

      • deegee says:

        My post above did not list my beliefs.
        It simply exposed two fallacies from a long list of fallacies.

        If you wish to know the foundation of my beliefs, just ask.
        I believe in YHWH (or JHVH if you prefer), and His Son. The rest of my beliefs is too long for discussion here.

        • So What? says:

          So your belief system is extremely short. In one word, superstition.

          • deegee says:

            So you believe without a doubt that no one exists outside of those living on earth?

          • So What? says:

            No, I don’t believe in any supernatural being existing on earth or otherwise.

      • Voice of Reason says:

        You really think it’s all about programming and memes?!

        You don’t think it’s about POWER?!!!

        Wow! What a wonderful world of delusion you live in.

    • Tim says:

      “”The scriptures also say that ‘the length of a man’s life is but a vapor’ to God – which would be around 100 years is 1/2 second, with 518400 seconds in 6 days, so 518400 * 2 * 100 = over 100 million years of our time for the 6 days of creation. And over a billion years of you believe that men used to live to be a thousand years in age.

      Nicely done, Deegee.

      “”if you believe that men used to live to be a thousand years in age.

      Well, we don’t even usually get the hundered now that our grandparents did {even the ones that ‘worked themselves to death by 30 << this is a trap for bobbo, just leave it alone}. I wonder why that is??

      Also, I bet Earth used to rotate much faster then for some odd reason and much was counted in days so as not to get confused with the heathen Sun worshipers??

      • deegee says:

        “Nicely done, Deegee.”

        Thanks.
        I thought you might like that one.

        “I bet Earth used to rotate much faster …”

        Without getting too deep into scriptural discussions (I could, but in keeping with brevity), Einstienian time relativity can also be of interest for discussion.

        • Tim says:

          Ha!! Actually, I was thinking more of how the moon was very close when we spun fast but our rotational kinetic energy was leeched {thx for the proper usage, tb} by tidal drag accellerating the moon to higher and higher orbits.

          “”Tidal acceleration is an effect of the tidal forces between an orbiting natural satellite (e.g. the Moon), and the primary planet that it orbits (e.g. Earth). The acceleration causes a gradual recession of a satellite in a prograde orbit away from the primary, and a corresponding slowdown of the primary’s rotation. The process eventually leads to tidal locking of the smaller first, and later the larger body. The Earth–Moon system is the best studied case.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration#Angular_momentum_and_energy

          • Tim says:

            And I just wanted to take a second here to remember what I was going to say and that I would like to blame the moon for global warming. And global cooling. In a sort of foot/scale node/anti-node relationship and all the difference in terra-watt\hours through tidal drag that entails and means for global climate.

            Tax the moon. Can I get an ‘A-men!?’

  10. Dallas says:

    The goal here is not about educating kids to make them employable and free thinkers .

    It’s about satisfying religious adults need to express and promote their own religious dogma. The child is merely a vehicle to do this.

    What makes it extra vile is that taxpayer dollars are used for this hobby.

  11. NewFormatSux says:

    The Left is upset at anything that takes away their monopoly on brainwashing children. They wish to inculcate children into being the property of the State.

    The liberal religion taught in regular schools is much worse, and then the other things are not well taught at all.

    My guess would be that the kids in these charter schools are much more knowledgeable about science than kids in public education.

    • So What? says:

      As opposed to being property of a religous cult.

    • jpfitz says:

      My experience with neocons versus liberals points to more brainwashing by the cons. The libs mostly let the mind take a natural course of learning and envisioning their surroundings with much less use of blinders.

      • Captain Obvious says:

        Pretty much agree. The liberals couldn’t organize their way out of a paper bag. Kind of like the drunk Uncle at the wedding who has his car keys taken away.

        • Tim says:

          Hey! I resemble that remark! Yet, I mostly stick to pneumatic tube transit, these days — no keys needed. You want to wear your own travel-suit, though, because I don’t think that is just wire-lube in the Lucite pipes.

          • Captain Obvious says:

            The tubes require different gear, and I’m always in favor of new gear. It’s the best way to actually see the big cities. And these days, the fastest way to get around.

  12. Quivering Quislings quake quantifying querulous questions says:

    You know…. it is interesting. The tension between religious freedom and protecting the kiddies from child abuse. The extreme positions are easy to formulate, but as all too often, we live in the middle.

    Does it matter how many kiddies have the basic education to become electrical engineers when we now get those services outsourced?

    “If the religious could be reasoned with, there wouldn’t be any.”

    Ha, ha. Same with every other Dogma. So, on balance, I say==kiddies are the property of their parents, and absent blood on the carpet, should be abused as desired.

    Its more efficient.

    • Dallas says:

      Kiddies as “..the property of their parents ..and can be abused..” sounds all well and good until those little fuckers get to be adults and affect me.

      • Regurgitating repellant rhapsodies, rejecting rigorous review righteously says:

        I take your point Dallas but that is a wholly different issue regarding citizen to citizen NOT the relationship of Parent to Child.

        Evil is hard to quantify though.

        All purely hypothetical though as the Gubment steps in and interferes well before the criminal law takes notice. What to teach in schools being only one such MAJOR component.

        Parents wanting the kiddies to be mini-me’s is entirely understandable. Perhaps, it would be best to put BOTH the child and its adult into the same training camps?

        Ha, ha.

  13. Paulie says:

    The only “lie” is see in this discussion is the premise of the article, Dave. The lie that says charter schools (or any schools) are being subverted and infiltrated, while according to government and History, none exists. It’s an open-end discussion.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2543
    Just b/c your personal views are all to well “anti-Christian” and well voiced wherever/whenever you deem to do so, doesn’t make for fact, science, or intelligence. Nor does it exemplify education or it’s obligation. It’s merely an “opinion.” We, then will not “shut-up, slave.” lol

    • cl1fton says:

      Oh Paulie,
      Using discovery.org as your “proof” shows us what you “think”.
      ’cause the Bible tells me so.
      Science isn’t a religion. It just looks like a faith to people that don’t understand it.

      • So What? says:

        “Scientists do not join hands every Sunday singing, “yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down. Amen!” If they did that, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.” Dan Barker.

        • Tim says:

          “”Religion is a fool whistling in the dark to scare the shadows

          James Baldwin — Raymond Carter?? Sonny’s Blues.

          i like turtles.

          • So What? says:

            As I said, me. When I think of whistling fools pedro and alfie are the two that come to mind the quickest.

          • So What? says:

            I hear the whistle of a fool pedro must be near trying to deflect away from himself.

          • So What? says:

            Hey pedro how do you frustrate a troll?

        • So What? says:

          You assume I am a liberal without evidence. You also assume that I am a proponent of AGW when I have never posted a comment as either a proponent or opponent of AGW. Thus marking you as the typical troll that you are. It must be a sad little world for you to be wrong so often.

          http://tinyurl.com/oo3nsfn

        • So What? says:

          So not only are you a plagiarist, you’re a bald faced liar about it. Obviously your parents didn’t raise you right or your a lawyer.

      • Voice of Reason says:

        Science isn’t a religion. It just looks like a faith to people that don’t understand it.

        …Now, where have I heard that before?

        http://thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

        http://vimeo.com/28367057

        I dunno. Maybe I just made the same conclusions too!

      • Paulie says:

        LOL “Proof” is not owned by science, scientists, those who follow it, or anybody. (Liberals, included) The article points to the Law cases involved in the implementation of the sciences taught in public edu. Your response to it (if even read) show your bias to the discussion, and once again, the Liberal demand on, well, everything.

    • Captain Obvious says:

      To you, I’m an atheist.
      To God, I’m the loyal opposition.

  14. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Paulie says:
    1/20/2014 at 12:37 pm

    LOL “Proof” is not owned by science, scientists, those who follow it, or anybody. (Liberals, included)/// In point of fact, yes==proof is “owned” by science. Satan’s Book, the dictionary, confirms by eucumenically stating:

    proof, noun

    1.
    evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. /// …. and that evidence or argument is ESTABLISHED ONLY BY SCIENCE by demonstrating predictive and repeatable results. You know==the oppositie kind of results one gets from prayers, visions, and private revelations from God and his ilk.

    The article points to the Law cases involved in the implementation of the sciences taught in public edu. Your response to it (if even read) show your bias to the discussion, and once again, the Liberal demand on, well, everything. /// Connect the dots. How is what is said above a response to any legal argument at all? ….. maybe read the thread again while squinting with one eye??….. something????

    “If the religious could be reasoned with, there would be no religion.” /// But religion abounds. Ergo………

    Ha, ha. Silly Hoomans……….any damn silly position/dogma you wish. Arf…Arf!!!!

  15. cl1fton says:

    Sorry I forgot to attrib the quote.
    I suspect Dawkins wouldn’t mind the use.
    And…. bobbo for the win.

  16. Glenn E. says:

    I can’t help but wonder if those that promote a “scientific” explanation of the origin of life on earth, aren’t really out to undermined the idea of the Rights of Men? Because if we all just evolved from some ooze, and no God creator was involved. Then we shouldn’t complain when the rich legislate away all our rights, that no God gave us. The whole agenda of promoting evolution, favors the wealthy, very well. Or it at least makes them feel less guilty about hording it all for themselves. If there’s no God to believe in. Even Darwin had little love or compassion for the sick and poor. He as much as said that they were parasites, holding back the more deserving of humanity. Meaning, those who had back-stabbed and conned their way to the top. As if attaining money and political power, was a mark of evolutionary advancement. When if anything, the very wealthy are the parasites of humanity. Because they nullify diversity.

    The lasted statistic shows that the 85 richest people in the world are worth as much as 3.5 billion of the poorest people.

    http://businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-20/the-worlds-85-richest-now-worth-as-much-as-3-dot-5-billion-poorest

    That’s not natural selection at work. That’s just plain greed and ignorance at work. When 3.5 billion people are working their asses off, so that 85 jerks can drink and party themselves into a grave. Since they don’t want to believe in a God, because it’s a moral inconvenience. Then they can’t believe in an afterlife, either. So those 85 are just living for today. Or plan to pass what they’ve sucked out of the world, for their own offspring to do the same.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Glenn?….. are you there/here/anywhere Glenn????

      I have to assume you “know” or can recite the winning arguments that defeat your position, yet you post such drivel as if it was….. what???….some good idea? A good argument??? What???

      Evolution is not “directly” about morality or wealth accretion although it is fun to bend it to such purposes. So basic a definitional foundation, I won’t go into it unless you ask for the pedantry.

      As you conflictingly say: “That’s not natural selection at work.” /// Yea verily. EVEN YOU recognize it. Posting otherwise shows the depth of the rot your dogma has within you.

      Morality? No one but cloistered idiots with no contact with the external world argue that the Bible is a source of Morality….. well, the New Testament perhaps if you ignore key provision like abandon your family and follow me Jim Jones type delusions of the “faith.” Or everyone’s favorite that the worst trash of humanity can be saved on their death bed conversions==you know, crap BS for the living to snag them to the faith.

      “Even Darwin had little love or compassion for the sick and poor. He as much as said that they were parasites, holding back the more deserving of humanity.” /// NEW ARGUMENT for me (which keeps me returning). It has the stench of lying dogma about it. No link. No direct quote.

      Only my first google hit very strongly suggests exactly the opposite. Oh well, you religious types are like that: its not a sin to lie in gods favor. Ha, ha.

      Prove it.

      http://loverev.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/darwins-views-on-human-compassion-you-might-be-surprised/

    • Captain Obvious says:

      Now you’re talking like one of those statist socialist thingamabobs.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Captain: Its not obvious to what or to whom you are responding or whether you are being serious or sarcastic.

        No, not Obvious.

        Religion will do that to a person. So will beer?

  17. Mathematics of today gears itself to skill and drill pedagogy strategies in response to strict accountability from high stakes testing. With pressures from the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, schools and teachers adhere to test driven curriculums. This paper will introduce the transformation from accountability to culturally responsive mathematics pedagogy. A brief literature review will set up the basis for a curriculum reformation. Reasons for transformative math pedagogy will be followed by a framework of intervention of engineering, place of the teacher, and ethnomathematics. Further discussions in the paper will allow for topics of further research and implications.

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      I can only assume you are competent in math…. as your English totally sucks. Presumably, either English is a second or third language, or you are an academic.

      Ha, ha.

      • Captain Obvious says:

        You may want to proof your own English before you insult somebody.

  18. bobbo, we think with words, yet few ever pick up the fricken DICTIONARY and apply it with any skill or rigour AT ALL says:

    pedro says:
    1/20/2014 at 12:05 pm

    “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” /// That is a great quote. A springboard for what words mean, and the flowers and weeds that result?

    Its best to separate the two addressed issues: what is science, what is religion. THEN bring them together.

    So…….Pedro ………. what does the statement that “Science without religion is lame” mean to you? For me–it means that if all a person knows is science, then they are a completely disfunctional human being. In fact, a person CANNOT “know” nothing but science. In fact, hoomans start by being all emotions with no science at all. Easy to stay that way for the most part. But grow up 1000 years ago, alone in the bush, and over time, even that individual will gain some science: fire burns, crockodiles will eat you, the wildebeest will run over you, rocks fall to the ground when thrown. SCIENCE is unavoidable. Will that same person gain any “religion?” They can, but its not necessary. Fears and doubts==of course.

    Life gives us science, fear gives us religion.

    Interesting….. no?

  19. bobbo, we think with words, yet few ever pick up the fricken DICTIONARY and apply it with any skill or rigour AT ALL says:

    pedro answering obliquely says:
    1/21/2014 at 8:05 am

    Sad is trying to prove someone wrong using his own argument. /// It is actually your impression of Einsteins argument as you have posted it. If you are adopting this quote as your own understanding of the topic, read on.

    Sad is figuring out that one of the most known scientists acknowledged religion /// Gee Whiz–a sentence in a letter to a colleqgue. Was it a throw away line meant to encourage conversation or a “considered” opinion? Clue: it was one sentence in a paragraph that overall SLAMMED RELIGION AS BEING CHILDISH AND SUPERSTITIOUS. You connect the dots.

    even as something important to balance science and you might not be a liberul by your own admittance, but it’s sad that you behave like a liberul and you cannot even face it. /// Ha, ha. the two independent clauses are just that. Science is not balanced by anything. Neither is Religion. Einstein just notes a flaw in each.

    Bottom Line: there is NO SUBSTITUTE for science to discover the truth.

    There is an INFINITY of alternatives to Religion to establish a moral grounding. I prefering Sartrian Existentialism, just as the closest fit to human yearning in a meaningless universe. Your choices may vary.

    Go Pedro=====================> ((Please be more detailed than calling me a flip flopping liberul? —Ha, ha…. as if.))

    • So What? says:

      Most likely he will just quote someone (without attribution).

      “The day that you stop looking — because you’re content God did it — I don’t need you in the lab. You’re useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world.”

      –Neil Degrasse Tyson

      • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

        Gee No Name….. I don’t mean to belittle Pedro (too much) but making an unattributed plagerism is actually a rare and high water mark for Pedro. So much better than his kneejerk sheeple/flip flop/liberul paucity of response.

        Fantastic quote there btw.

        ……. just how can we make science a religion???

        Reminds me of the Diva’s Song from Fifth Element==one of my favorites:

        http://youtube.com/watch?v=4MR6D7tL38U

        and googling to that website, I came across the UCLA lecture course on the same. OH NO==gonna be spending hours without any credit at all. I sure hope the Prof takes her shirt off at some point:

        http://youtube.com/watch?v=K3Zx-qcNZf4

        • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

          So What—apologies. I’m half asleep just having finished my Kahlua based Tiramasu Mousse for later this evening. Time for my beauty sleep.

          I’m sure though that No Name would join as as would 99% of anyone with a high school ged and above?

          ………I see Pedo responded. As inane and irrelevant as possible. Its like…… the boy is proud of being ignorant….. or maybe just Spanish?

    • Tim says:

      “”there is NO SUBSTITUTE for science to discover the truth.

      Then, *science* recognizes that it can’t reveal all *truths* even though it be known that a right answer does exist.

      “”Since science provides us with knowledge, it may seem surprising that it sometimes sets limitations to knowledge. By a “limitation to knowledge” we mean that certain facts about the world cannot be discovered or confirmed in an empirical way, no matter how big our effort, including possible future technological advances…

      https://www.google.com/url?q=http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.0827&sa=U&ei=JHHmUsPSIKaksQThqIHgDw&ved=0CB0QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNG1ZLBgc627CLYPXvUhfoA5GR2ZJA

      “”Superdeterminism states that no experiment we perform has complete freedom, so no matter what you are trying to learn about how things work out in nature, nature will tell you what it wants to tell and may or may not tell the truth as per its own decision

      http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/9511/will-superdeterminism-if-proven-make-science-useless

      Some processes/numerical values in nature just seem to be *proprietary* possibly because knowing them might break them — just like SecureID.

      TrollHunter:
      http://imdb.com/title/tt1740707/

  20. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

    Say Liberty Lover–I admire any/every parent that takes a hand in their kiddies education. I know that you continue that involvement at home. Your tussle with Dallas is a bit vague though. Its ambiguous but I take it that your kiddies get a strong science curriculum? Your child, in your school, at your time and place? THAT anecdotal experience does not negate at all the OP.

    Assuming IStem is the same as Responsive Ed, did you review the texts used specifically on the subjects of evolution?

    You might be surprised…. and happy your kiddies had your help to avoid that nonsense? Or do you have, unbeknownst to yourself, a little nest of budding born agains???

    Ha, ha. One of the biggest tragedies I can imagine: Ted Turner waking up to Jane Fonda turning religious. Actually makes me feel sorry for him.

  21. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

    Speaking of Beautiful Jane, this is about the best 10 minutes of video you can likely view, and yet for me with my positions firmly implanted now in hardening concrete, even THE BEST of Sam Harris is getting a bit worn………and yet idiots, not just that feel good idiot Indian guy (have you seen his son picking up the same BS?==ha, ha, the rotten seen doesn’t fall far from the rotten apple), still maintain faith against all reason.

    The very first 2.5 min is the best of the batch.

  22. Mr Ed says:

    Of course, I saw a dinosaur yesterday! Oh wait, that was Chris Christie…

  23. Hmeyers says:

    God created evolution to enact his changes.

    Furthermore, God wanted us to discover this via science.

  24. The Wrong Guy says:

    The irony of the comments on this post is that so many are able to use exceptional critical thinking skills to deconstruct and point out how bogus so many things in our daily lives are, but are utterly unable to do the same to religion. That they accept at face value, even if, like the creationists, have to invent twisty-turny reasons for why things are what they are, is so sad. Guess the concept of Occam’s Razor is completely lost on them.

    • Dallas says:

      True! Trying to rationalize with the irrational is futile but often a mere entertainment option!

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      Ocams razor got nuttin’ to do wid it.

  25. God bless America, where we have the freedom to raise our children to have minds enslaved by the baseless superstitions of yore.

  26. Yippie Yi Yo Kayah says:

    Well, on the bright side this should alleviate any threat of a shortage of dumb ass Texans for the foreseeable future.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 13751 access attempts in the last 7 days.