"teachers cannot present information they believe to be false" Pennsylvania must be a good place to teach science. According to this statement, Kenneth Hovind could teach science there (if he weren't otherwise occupied at the moment) without presenting information in textbooks he believes to be false.
@MorganMarvinson Kent Hovind is not fit to teach potty training let alone science (or even religion for that matter - I would have thought that his gross penchant for violating the 9th commandment and lining his own pockets in God's name would exclude him on that score). FInd yourself a better role model.
@ignatz1106 Your response shows you don't know enough about Kent Hovind to know why I would use him as an example. His consistent issue was why his tax dollars should be spent to promote in high school biology textbooks what not only he thought was false, but that scientists in general consider to be false.
I do believe his stand-alone position left him open to misunderstand what a non-profit organization should pay in taxes, but I have no evidence that he was "lining his pockets" in any way.
@MorganMarvinson Your response is so utterly laughable. So "Scientists in general" think that evolution, old earth (Hovind is a YEC), geology, astrophysics, geophysics (all of which a YEC must, by definition, dispute and all of which he did dispute) etc. is wrong - based on what evidence ? The VAST MAJORITY of the scientific community believes in these things - including evolution. "Scientists in general" DO NOT believe in the opposite positon. What rock have you been living under ?
@MorganMarvinson Very funny - not. How about answering the rest of the question (do you really back Hovind ? I actually thought you were more intelligent than that....).
@ignatz1106 "I thought you were more intelligent than that ..." So how am I to take this jab? I am intelligent, and you apparently like to throw insults.
Do you want me to go through issue by issue to tell you where I agree with him? Why not start with what I have gone on record as supporting--that there are many things in public school biology texts that are no longer supported by the scientific community, yet they continue to be presented to our young people as evidences for evolution?
@MorganMarvinson So, ok, which "many things in public school biology texts that are no longer supported by the scientific community" are you referring to and which "scientific community" are you also referring to ? If it's something other than the creationist hacks (i.e. ICR, AiG etc.), then I'd like to see some evidence of your claims - i.e. peer reviewed publications etc.
@ignatz1106 I commend your openness. I really need to be working on a research project in another field that I am doing, so I suggest you actually watch some of Hovind's presentations about what he finds unacceptable in the textbooks. You may not like his belief in God as the creator and will have to choke down the part you don't like, but he deals with specific issues in the texts that have been discredited.
I'll have to leave you to your conscience as to whether you follow through with this.
"Dr" Hovind specifically and consciously rejects reality and replaces it with a 2,500 year old myth. He then tries to prop up this myth by finding holes in evolution. He's a man with a religious agenda, not a scientific one.
@Ambidexter143 "... Hovind specifically ..." A sweeping statement, which I would take as saying you aren't interesting in listening to the specifics of his complaints about public school textbooks.
As it happens, I know what his complaints about public school textbooks are. They don't push the religious agenda he wants promoted. Instead, they go in for science and reality and all that stuff Hovind wants to replace with religious mythology.
@ignatz1106 Again, you demonstrate what you don't know. In Hovind's public presentations, he spent most of his time going through fairly current biology books, pointing out exhibits and claims that have been debunked by scientists in general. This was what he complained about paying taxes for.
Moral of the story ... look before you shoot. You may be putting a bullet in your own foot.
@MorganMarvinson Thankfully his newly found status as a convicted felon should debar him from teaching in most states (although some of the private religious schools are probably none too fussy) but a lively career in telesales or temping beacons although he will no doubt go back to his former occupation of spouting garbage on the internet and holding stage-managed "debates" with audiences stuffed full with bussed-in yahoos declaring him the winner. Go Hovind, knock yourself out (please).
@ignatz1106 I've often wondered what this experience will do to him. Incarceration provides a lot of time for a person to think. Even though he would do it with a grin, his "I'm winning this argument because I'm right" (and not because of rhetorical skills) did display a lack of modesty for someone who is called by the name of Christ. I hope he comes back with humility and a better grasp of his opponents' point of view. The man is intelligent and he did present legitimate issues.
What's so wrong about NOT being created? Oh, yeah, right, you lose your 10% discount coupon at Denny's and your right to be seated ahead of Black people...
all you would have to do is make the case that aliens are part of creationism and believeing in aliens is not a religion. some people believe that the annunaki made humans to be there slave. i really dont find anything religious about that. and you would have to keep everything about the earth. i bet if i wrote this book i could get it to pass the courts and if i didnt pass i could get evolution out of the class room cause i could classify it as a religous belief.
@michaeltheman8888 Evolution is not a religious belief. Religion requires faith (belief in the absence of evidence) there is no faith in evolution. It is fact.
@GuBB3rGuN I think you don't understand religious faith--and you aren't totally clear on the essence of evolutionary theory. Religious faith is based on evidence--it is not a total leap in the dark. One cannot accept Evolution without believing that life spontaneously arose (abiogenesis) and that random copy errors, coupled with live-or-die Natural Selection, can produce exquisite design. Those beliefs do not accord with any evidence I have read or observed.
That's what the Constitution says, but the original intent of the framers demands that congress act not what the framers wrote in the Constitution, but what they REALLY meant but didn't say. Read your Constitution (or not), just like the strict constructionists, or the soriginal intentionists do(n't)
cdesign proponentsists
dildace 11 months ago
"teachers cannot present information they believe to be false" Pennsylvania must be a good place to teach science. According to this statement, Kenneth Hovind could teach science there (if he weren't otherwise occupied at the moment) without presenting information in textbooks he believes to be false.
Maybe in a few years ...
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Kent Hovind is not fit to teach potty training let alone science (or even religion for that matter - I would have thought that his gross penchant for violating the 9th commandment and lining his own pockets in God's name would exclude him on that score). FInd yourself a better role model.
ignatz1106 1 year ago
@ignatz1106 Your response shows you don't know enough about Kent Hovind to know why I would use him as an example. His consistent issue was why his tax dollars should be spent to promote in high school biology textbooks what not only he thought was false, but that scientists in general consider to be false.
I do believe his stand-alone position left him open to misunderstand what a non-profit organization should pay in taxes, but I have no evidence that he was "lining his pockets" in any way.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Your response is so utterly laughable. So "Scientists in general" think that evolution, old earth (Hovind is a YEC), geology, astrophysics, geophysics (all of which a YEC must, by definition, dispute and all of which he did dispute) etc. is wrong - based on what evidence ? The VAST MAJORITY of the scientific community believes in these things - including evolution. "Scientists in general" DO NOT believe in the opposite positon. What rock have you been living under ?
ignatz1106 1 year ago
Comment removed
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@ignatz1106 BTW, to answer your closing question--it's the moon.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Very funny - not. How about answering the rest of the question (do you really back Hovind ? I actually thought you were more intelligent than that....).
ignatz1106 1 year ago
@ignatz1106 "I thought you were more intelligent than that ..." So how am I to take this jab? I am intelligent, and you apparently like to throw insults.
Do you want me to go through issue by issue to tell you where I agree with him? Why not start with what I have gone on record as supporting--that there are many things in public school biology texts that are no longer supported by the scientific community, yet they continue to be presented to our young people as evidences for evolution?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson So, ok, which "many things in public school biology texts that are no longer supported by the scientific community" are you referring to and which "scientific community" are you also referring to ? If it's something other than the creationist hacks (i.e. ICR, AiG etc.), then I'd like to see some evidence of your claims - i.e. peer reviewed publications etc.
ignatz1106 1 year ago
@ignatz1106 I commend your openness. I really need to be working on a research project in another field that I am doing, so I suggest you actually watch some of Hovind's presentations about what he finds unacceptable in the textbooks. You may not like his belief in God as the creator and will have to choke down the part you don't like, but he deals with specific issues in the texts that have been discredited.
I'll have to leave you to your conscience as to whether you follow through with this.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"Dr" Hovind specifically and consciously rejects reality and replaces it with a 2,500 year old myth. He then tries to prop up this myth by finding holes in evolution. He's a man with a religious agenda, not a scientific one.
Ambidexter143 9 months ago
@Ambidexter143 "... Hovind specifically ..." A sweeping statement, which I would take as saying you aren't interesting in listening to the specifics of his complaints about public school textbooks.
Your opinion has been registered.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson
As it happens, I know what his complaints about public school textbooks are. They don't push the religious agenda he wants promoted. Instead, they go in for science and reality and all that stuff Hovind wants to replace with religious mythology.
Ambidexter143 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ignatz1106 Again, you demonstrate what you don't know. In Hovind's public presentations, he spent most of his time going through fairly current biology books, pointing out exhibits and claims that have been debunked by scientists in general. This was what he complained about paying taxes for.
Moral of the story ... look before you shoot. You may be putting a bullet in your own foot.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Thankfully his newly found status as a convicted felon should debar him from teaching in most states (although some of the private religious schools are probably none too fussy) but a lively career in telesales or temping beacons although he will no doubt go back to his former occupation of spouting garbage on the internet and holding stage-managed "debates" with audiences stuffed full with bussed-in yahoos declaring him the winner. Go Hovind, knock yourself out (please).
ignatz1106 1 year ago
@ignatz1106 I've often wondered what this experience will do to him. Incarceration provides a lot of time for a person to think. Even though he would do it with a grin, his "I'm winning this argument because I'm right" (and not because of rhetorical skills) did display a lack of modesty for someone who is called by the name of Christ. I hope he comes back with humility and a better grasp of his opponents' point of view. The man is intelligent and he did present legitimate issues.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
Lol, that book was anything BUT intelligently designed.
Venaloid 1 year ago
What's so wrong about NOT being created? Oh, yeah, right, you lose your 10% discount coupon at Denny's and your right to be seated ahead of Black people...
Dracopol 1 year ago
Sweet, sweet irony! :D
Brownyman 2 years ago
What is the name of this pbs documentary?
Mitche23 2 years ago
all you would have to do is make the case that aliens are part of creationism and believeing in aliens is not a religion. some people believe that the annunaki made humans to be there slave. i really dont find anything religious about that. and you would have to keep everything about the earth. i bet if i wrote this book i could get it to pass the courts and if i didnt pass i could get evolution out of the class room cause i could classify it as a religous belief.
michaeltheman8888 2 years ago
@michaeltheman8888 Evolution is not a religious belief. Religion requires faith (belief in the absence of evidence) there is no faith in evolution. It is fact.
GuBB3rGuN 1 year ago
@GuBB3rGuN you have faith in the people that tell you what is truth. you religious nazi
michaeltheman8888 1 year ago
@GuBB3rGuN I think you don't understand religious faith--and you aren't totally clear on the essence of evolutionary theory. Religious faith is based on evidence--it is not a total leap in the dark. One cannot accept Evolution without believing that life spontaneously arose (abiogenesis) and that random copy errors, coupled with live-or-die Natural Selection, can produce exquisite design. Those beliefs do not accord with any evidence I have read or observed.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
Now THERE is your problem!!!
Crap on 'em, we have to explain all transistional fossils... even the ones belonging to creationism.
Oh creationism, puhleze become extinct!!
Paxmax 3 years ago
CONGRESS CANNOT PASS A LAW THAT PROMOTES ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER.
That very clause should be the end of this stupid ID issue. Come on.
FighterDoken 3 years ago 16
@FighterDoken
That's what the Constitution says, but the original intent of the framers demands that congress act not what the framers wrote in the Constitution, but what they REALLY meant but didn't say. Read your Constitution (or not), just like the strict constructionists, or the soriginal intentionists do(n't)
nhf7170 1 year ago
Comment removed
FighterDoken 1 year ago
@nhf7170 I see I'm not the only necro-psychic-sicist out there. The two of us can read the thoughts of the DEAD!! BWAHAHA!!
FighterDoken 1 year ago
Watch all 12 parts at pbs. It's really worth the download time.
leporidus 4 years ago 2
just watch it on google video
migkillertwo 4 years ago
"cdesign proponentsists" It's evolving!
Nebzz 4 years ago 6
Like a virus.
CdesignProponentsist 4 years ago 3
*gets infected with the I.D virus* AAAAAAAAH!!!! OH NOES!!!!
*in a zombie voice* God, er an intelligent designer, created the universe!
migkillertwo 4 years ago 4