as seen in this quote a evolution believing professor/teacher who teaches physics admits that he effectively brain washes students in to believing in evolution. The question i ask you is why must some one be brain washed to believe in evolution if it is so well proven? Or are students brainwashed because it in fact has NO supporting evidence that is real?

"I use that trust to effectively brainwash them…our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal---without demonstration---to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.” Mark Singham, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today, (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54

"The question i ask you is why must some one be brain washed to believe in evolution if it is so well proven? Or are students brainwashed because it in fact has NO supporting evidence that is real?"

The guy is actually talking about physics...hes a physics professor, so i dont know where u get evolution from.

but...what hes saying is that, the time required to go over every single other concept or theory or hypothesis, or controversy in existence would take up far too much time...time that no professor has to teach. Thus, they focus on the strongest, best supported material, and dont give two seconds to bother going over things that are less supported, or have been proven wrong.

for example...in basic geology, were taught plate tectonics...we arent taught the expanding earth theory, or...of ancient land bridges, or...isostatic continents...

simply because there is much less, if not, no objective rational evidence for them.

Am i being brainwashed...in a sense yes, but if i do have a problem with plate tectonics, i still have the knowledge to know how to prove it wrong none the less.

Thus, in a sense, everything is brainwash when it comes to education...i could say that for any field of science, or even things related to say...business, or economics, or basically, anything that uses personal reference before application.

heres the rest of the article too

"http://ptonline.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PHTOAD00005300000600 0054000001&idtype=cvips

notice how he actually condones those who question his word

"The
best that I can hope for is to enable my students to think critically, to detect propaganda and reject intellectual coercion, even when I am the one doing it. What troubles me is the assumption by some scientists that it would be
quite admirable if people believed what we say and rejected the views of those who disagree with us, even though
most people have no real basis for preferring
one view over the other. If scientists want the spirit of true inquiry to flourish, then we have to accept—
and even encourage—public skepticism about what we say, too. Otherwise, we become nothing but ideologues.
So I salute you Jamal and Doug,wherever you are, and say now what
I should have said to you then: “Listen
carefully and courteously to what knowledgeable people have to say, and be able to use that information when
necessary. Weigh the arguments for and against any issue but, ultimately, stand up for what you believe. Don’t
ever feel forced to accept something just because some “expert” tells you it is true. Believe things only when they
make sense to you and you are good and ready for them.”
"

__________________
Thank you for supporting our sponsors!

What does it have to do with evolution? every thing considering evolution monkey to man has permiated all of the secular universities in science and public school in all fields of science. . As for the rest of this article of this guys who really cares what he said he said. So he backpedals a bit after words to try and make him self seem a little better.
But he also goes on to say "what troubles me is that some scientists (the same secular scientists in his peer system)is the assumption by some scientists that it would be
quite admirable if people believed what we say and rejected the views of those who disagree with us, even though
most people have no real basis for preferring
one view over the other. " So even if he had not said what he di it makes no difference. Fact this guy omits or glosses over any evidence that does not fit his world view and that is by his own admision. Fact he also admits that other scientists also are doing exactly the same thing. Fact evolution is supported onlly by frauds and disproven exidences. Fact evolution is just as common in physics as it is in geology biology asstro physics you name it its there. Macro evolution is not just apes to people its also particles to apes no particles to apes no apes to people. Im sure youd love to put out the old "evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life just how it diversified origin of life is another field altogather" To bad evolution requires life from non life and it requires big bang and a billions of years old universe as well. Sorry compadre but no abiogenisis life from non life no evolution. Prove abiogenesis first then we can talk evolution

"What does it have to do with evolution? every thing considering evolution monkey to man has permiated all of the secular universities in science and public school in all fields of science."

you said

"admits that he effectively brain washes students in to believing in evolution. "

but thats not the case...there is a difference between biology and physics

"Fact this guy omits or glosses over any evidence that does not fit his world view and that is by his own admision"

thats by everyones own admission... whens the last time youve heard a theologin consider greek gods as a rational area of belief, or whens the last time your chemistry teacher or professor taught u about ancient Greece's atomic theory? Or your geography teacher teach u of a flat earth? Its the same concept...sure we could entertain the idea, but frankly its a waste of time...which is why professors stick with teaching the current best supported data...in the case of this article, big bang cosmology.

as a matter off fact, in the dover trial, it was ruled that if something like ID were to be taught, then, teachers would also have to teach things like alchemy and astrology.

"Fact evolution is just as common in physics as it is in geology biology asstro physics you name it its there. "

no, not really...ive never had a geology professor even utter the word evolution in any course ive had...no chemistry professor utter the word in chemistry, no physics or math professor utter the word in either of those too.

sure some may, but there are different fields of study, and it would be a waste of time discussing evolution, when there are other things to discuss. (Thats like discussing evolution in a statistics class).

and the rest of your message is unsupported subjection...how do i know this? because there are over 200 thousand research papers on biological evolution on just pubmed alone :-p

well, let me give clarity now that uve already brought it up...

"Macro evolution is not just apes to people its also particles to apes"

well, first off, humans are by definition "apes"...but if you mean primitive apes to intelligent advanced apes, then yes...and particles to apes...thats...a lot of things, its evolution, micro biology, a lot of physics, cosmology etc.

Im sure youd love to put out the old "evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life just how it diversified origin of life is another field altogather"

well...its a fact that it is a different field

To bad evolution requires life from non life and it requires big bang and a billions of years old universe as well.

that is not true, and ud be surprised, there are many scientists out there who believe God started the first life, then used evolution.

"Prove abiogenesis first then we can talk evolution"

well...RNA molecules have been made in labs, which are quite close to DNA...and last i checked thats what we are made out of...but im not a molecular biologist, so i wont make any claim, for i do not know the origins of life.

speaking of big bang physics, there will be an astronomer hosting a blog tv chat this sunday at 1pm eastern time...he goes by the name of AndromedasWake...so google if youre interested...he is there to answer any questions as well as respond to any arguments, or complaints in regards to big bang cosmology...just google his name, or message me for more details if youre interested.

Not going to bother replying to any thing but your comment on the dover trial saying if id is taught so much every thing else. That was actually just a argument against id used in the trial and as you know its a bold faced lie to try and say other wise here is the real out come i wont reply to you any longer it is painfully obvious you will do any thing to win a debate including but not limited to using out right lies have a nice day here is the decision

* For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

* A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

* The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

* The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

* Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not ‘teaching’ ID but instead is merely ‘making students aware of it.’ In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. (footnote 7 on page 46)

* After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. (page 64)

* [T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)

* ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)

* Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)

"That was actually just a argument against id used in the trial and as you know its a bold faced lie to try and say other wise here is the real out come i wont reply to you any longer it is painfully obvious you will do any thing to win a debate including but not limited to using out right lies have a nice day here is the decision"

eek! ok, perhaps i spoke too quickly...well...if you choose to drop the discussion about the article, my statements still stand. The dover trial comment is still rational none the less. And based on these rulings, id say the judge agrees.


"* The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)"

"* The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)"


"* After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. (page 64)"

"* [T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)"

"* ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)"

"* Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)"

well...i suppose i will not rebuke that...A because i was wrong, and B because i like what i see...quite a harsh ruling...chuckles*

btw, the judge was christian

Actually There is no law preventing creation SCIENCE to be taught never was and still is none. Dover was a political grab and failed at it.

Fact remains you knew that the dover trial never made any such claims in its judgment the entire idea is foolish no judgement would even be worded any thing like that. You only seem to have hoped that i would nto be in the least bit familiar with the case. At least that is how it appears to me.

I wont be repling to this post any longer as it is obvious that your not really up for a real debate on any thing and just want to divert attention from the issue at hand. And btw so what is scientist intelegently designed rna also that rna is not even close to be life.

"Actually There is no law preventing creation SCIENCE to be taught never was and still is none. Dover was a political grab and failed at it."

well, people who actually study law disagree, so i think i will take their word over yours. Also, creation science...are like opposites because science cannot be used on something like creation. Regardless of if creation is true or not, it by its terms could not be science because it is supernatural. If it isnt science, and its motivated by "cdesign proponentsists" Then, that is bringing religion into schools.

"Fact remains you knew that the dover trial never made any such claims in its judgment the entire idea is foolish no judgement would even be worded any thing like that. You only seem to have hoped that i would nto be in the least bit familiar with the case. At least that is how it appears to me."

to be perfectly honest, now that i think of it, it was a mistake to make the statement that it was ruled...you should be happy knowing that i admit when im wrong when someone shows me to be so...something we should all be willing to do. But at the same time, it is a valid point none the less, which is why i brought it up.

"t rna is not even close to be life. "

how about dna, is that close to life? RNA ~ DNA...DNA ~ life

if you want to have an actual debate, we can debate geology anytime of your wishing...just make a thread :-)

(fun fact about the dover trial...micheal behe accepts common descent) This one i can source back to his own words.

Well its not hard to look up laws. Prayer was never outlawed nor was teaching creation science in schools the sclu would like people to think both were and will hint that they were. See if they come out and flat out lie and say it was the person who does can be disbarred.
Creation science is science. of at least the same level as evolution both study origins un repeatable one time events that can not be duplicated. Sure some have tried the miller experiment (a total failure)More recently rna like molecules again though that only prove as i think was said by theseeker only proves intelligent design .

Michael J. Behe (born 1952) is an American biochemist and intelligent design advocate. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University

Michael J. Behe - ARN Authors Page list of works supporting ID so regardless of where he started if he did support evolution during the dover trial great because it only makes it look worse because hes now a ID proponent.

__________________
http://www.icr.org/article/4352/
Stripped of personification, natural selection can be adapted to explain anything--and therefore explains nothing.
nova on #topix
the only thing darwinism lacks as a religion is prayer to a god!


"It’s time for a new Reformation in the Church—to call the Church back to the authority of the Word of God, beginning in Genesis."-Ken ham
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...4/already-gone

"Prayer was never outlawed nor was teaching creation science in schools the sclu"

but, they did outlaw teaching religion in schools, which is what ID was ruled as.


"Creation science is science. of at least the same level as evolution both study origins un repeatable one time events that can not be duplicated."

who says evolutionary studies cannot be duplicated? That is a strawman argument (for those who dont know what a strawman argument is, look it up)


"Sure some have tried the miller experiment (a total failure)More recently rna like molecules again though that only prove as i think was said by theseeker only proves intelligent design ."

the rna has nothing to do with whether or not it is intelligent design...if we did start out as rna, then maybe it were intelligent design, but the point is, first we need to recognize if thats what it is, then we can move forward and talk about more or less how. Im not an enemy of the concept of intelligent design...but we simply have to seperate what we do know, with that we think we know.

Michael J. Behe (born 1952) is an American biochemist and intelligent design advocate. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University

Michael J. Behe - ARN Authors Page list of works supporting ID so regardless of where he started if he did support evolution during the dover trial great because it only makes it look worse because hes now a ID proponent.

no, he doesnt support evolution, he supports common descent...there is a difference...he believes that we descended from apes, and all that old earth stuff, but...he does not believe that evolution, if that is the process, did not go un helped...he accepts things like the fossil succession...he just believes our transformation over time, has been assisted by other means