PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
I improved it somewhat, the original bugged me. After and NASA don't even work as a slant rhyme, AV.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I improved it somewhat, the original bugged me. After and NASA don't even work as a slant rhyme, AV.And now we see a science man
Steeped in all his pride
Doing all that he surely can
To pollute us with Thalidomide
And if that wasn't good enough
Because of what came later
He built an O-ring, solid and tough
That blew and formed a crater
You'd think they'd learn from time to time
And do something right for a change
But fame and fortune beckons them
To work on something strange
Speaking as a former teacher, there are some things that you need to establish as fact quickly and move on, otherwise you risk miring the whole curriculum debating something that's actually irrelevant to the subject being taught and the outcomes you want for them.
Questioning evolution in science class is like questioning the origin and history of the English language during an a poetry class. It's actually irrelevant to what's being taught and would only mire the class in irrelevant discussion and debate.
Yet, if the idea that English resulted from a one-off cataclysmic event in the Levant about ~4500 years ago that created all languages was as popular as the rejection of evolution is, I'd bet there would be English teachers that would precis their classes the same way.
You mean things like:You'd think they'd learn from time to time
And do something right for a change
But fame and fortune beckons them
To work on something strange
And your assumption that I would count those things on your list as "strange" is akin to believing Thalidomide is a prenatal wonder drug.Your implication that science is not useful is akin to believing in the tooth fairy.
QV please: Bob Larson vs Winnipeg[URL="http://"][/url]Come on guys, please stop with the abject lie that students are not permitted from challenging evolution.
You have things backwards I suggest. It is those committed to “religious” thinking who are discouraged from questioning the status quo.
Excuse me, Alfred E. Newman?And your assumption that I would count those things on your list as "strange" is akin to believing Thalidomide is a prenatal wonder drug.
You'd think they'd learn from time to time
And do something right for a change
SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
I betcha you were hoping I didn't read the link.QV please: Bob Larson vs Winnipeg
Your implication that science is not useful is akin to believing in the tooth fairy.
And your assumption that I would count those things on your list as "strange" is akin to believing Thalidomide is a prenatal wonder drug.
The idea that science is somehow "bad" is really really hard to take seriously. Yes, science has led to the atom bomb and global warming. But I think it is clear that humanity is far, far, far better off as a result of the scientific enterprise than if we never stumbled upon it as a means to gain useful knowledge of our world.I find the anti-science bent some creationists have here to be immensely hypocritical. I don't see any creationists too quick to give up the scientific advancement we enjoy in modern life.
Do you want to pretend you've read everything I've written?Now you want to pretend you are a fan of science?
Ya ... you're right.There is nothing, nada, zip, diddly-squat in that link that supports the notion that students are not allowed to challenge the theory of evolution.
I'd say that was an understatement.It is those committed to “religious” thinking who are discouraged from questioning the status quo.
Ya ... as soon as a Christian turns on his computer, he's obligated to believe we came from the jungle, isn't he?I find the anti-science bent some creationists have here to be immensely hypocritical. I don't see any creationists too quick to give up the scientific advancement we enjoy in modern life.
If anyone expects me to subordinate my faith in a literal Genesis 1 creation, he'd doggone sure better have me replace it with something that doesn't run on trial-and-error.Why do you keep bringing it up though? You revel in pointing out the mistakes of science in the past (although some like the Challenger disaster less about science and more about engineering), yet there doesn't seem to be any point to it.
What about the idea that science is a gift from God?The idea that science is somehow "bad" is really really hard to take seriously.
I am ok with that.What about the idea that science is a gift from God?
And what if I think 5% of science is "junk science"? Am I allowed to tell it to take a hike?But if you believe this, then saying science can “take a hike” seems more than a smidge disrespectful to God.
It is hard to believe you are not a troll, to be frank.And what if I think 5% of science is "junk science"? Am I allowed to tell it to take a hike?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?