Comments on: Teachers Under Fire

By: laurisa

laurisa — Sun, 18 May 2008 17:56:59 +0000

ah-right: take your turn.Black Night: there is a need for those who wear a red A on their chest. Sciencebloggers and more lead me to believe that to ‘fuck off’ is the beginning to an answer.Larry: that’s the biggest crock of shit i’ve heard in a long time: Newton’s laws not relevant. hmm. we all got somewhere somehow. whether it be by gravitational pull, cold war or hunger, whatever. still, humans migrate for reasons at the time.Brightmoon: ELIMINATE polio? Is this WHO (World Heath Organization) or who? ever wonder who funds WHO? There are places in the world that suffer dearly from this affliction. Ain’t nothin’ changing unitl the money comes. I don’t care what u.s. fuckin’ a. says today. Dare you to take a trip: Lome, Togo. find it on a map.and then rCote: you are dumb. really? no melting glacier? What are you from _____? Huh>obviously you don’t deal with oil and gas. Hmmm…the precious energy sources that keep humanity going. At least YOUR humanity. tribal is a little bit different, but you wouldn’t know that. by your statements, i’d guess you are sitting comfortably…US maybe? Get a grip, man. The best way to expose a falsehood is to know the argument. I dare you.

By: Dr.G.

Dr.G. — Sun, 18 May 2008 17:08:01 +0000

In case you did not noticed my previous post was kind-of-a-response to Mr Cote’s amazingly unscientific one. So, let us talk propaganda. If you repeat enough times that there is no evidence for evolution, since it is such a big lie, people might believe it! There is tons of evidence, you just deny it, because it goes against your deepest beliefs.Also, for that other post about inventing a foundation of science out of envy to physics. Come on! Evolution is such a nice thing, has such powerful explanatory power, that it lend itself into being the most important concept in biology. It came before genetics! Yet genetics gave it better foundation. It came before molecular biology, yet what we witness is that the molecules attest for the evolutionary history of living beings. We find evidence so often we just do not say anything any more, we often do not even think about it, yet if we stop for a moment and contemplate it, we cannot do anything else than stand in awe at how beautifully unifying evolution is. So, it is not surprising that Dobzhansky said that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Evidence jumps at you everywhere! Thus, I cannot even imagine how could anybody build a textbook for biology without evolution EVERYWHERE. Worst, I cannot even imagine how can anybody say we invented it to artificially embrace all of biology. You have to be a very good liar, or plainly deny what your senses are telling you.Oh, I was forgetting one thing I wanted to say, physicists are responsible for a lot of advancements in the understanding of evolution. Did you know that? No decent physicist would ever deny that evolution makes a lot of sense, nor that it is a truly remarkable achievement in human understanding of nature.

By: Dr.G.

Dr.G. — Sun, 18 May 2008 16:30:46 +0000

Wow, I guess then that fossil fuels are in infinite supply (non-renewable resource liars!), and cars do not produce any pollutants whatsoever, breathing smog is actually healthy and might cure cancer, and the fact that producing ethanol from corn starch requires as much energy as it gives in the end does not make it stupid. How could I be so blind. I should learn to think properly. This is so obvious!—I admit, sarcasm cannot substitute for reasoned arguments, but sometimes enough is enough.

By: Ronald Cote

Ronald Cote — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:41:27 +0000

Dr.K, I shudder likewise. I was just trying to be courteous.

By: Dr. K.

Dr. K. — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 08:58:05 +0000

Mr. Cote: I shudder when I read you use the term “fellow scientist.” Honestly.

By: Ronald Cote

Ronald Cote — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:08:07 +0000

Cope, as a biologist who, but for a few exceptions as guest lecturer, has spent a career in applied science on artificial heart and kidney R&D and with NASA?s? backpack worn by astronauts on the moon, it is bothersome to me that a fellow scientist, although academician, would opt to teach only one side of the story in order to promulgate one?s own views. I was under the conviction that we, as scientists, were to expose all views, pro and con, in order to provide for real and meaningful learning experiences for students and let the weight of the evidence allow them to enter into debate so that they could draw their own conclusions. As a scientist, you disappoint me.Mike, what, pray tell is an atheistic scientist? Your record is stuck on everything that opposes your distorted atheistic religion. If in opposition, you claim it to be propaganda. And, I would suppose that you, and your impeccable ability to discern science from propaganda, are the final arbiter in what constitutes one from the other. If it agrees with you, it is science, if not, it is propaganda. That is kind of lame and sick!!With the poverty of evidence for evolution, repetition of ?evolution is fact? and that it is the ?foundation of science? is about all that is left. As Hitler stated, ?tell a lie often enough and people will believe it, and the bigger the lie, the more they will believe?. The most contemporary example is Gorebal Warming, So head for the high ground here comes a melting glacier!

By: Ronald Cote

Ronald Cote — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:32:17 +0000

Greg, my apologies. I misinterpreted a statement on manudo’s site where she had your site highlighted in bold red print.

By: Monado, FCD

Monado, FCD — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:59:14 +0000

I've got Ronald Cote at my blog too. He claimed to be a biologist, then treated me to an arithmetic calculation using a single rate of increase (I guess it was some version of modern fertility rates) to show why we had to start with 2 humans 6,000 years ago to get 6.3 billion people.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:48:14 +0000

99.999 percent of what? I see a lot of ninety-something percent talk in the comments, but not my post. Please clarify.

By: Ronald Cote

Ronald Cote — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:28:28 +0000

Greg,You mention the 99.999% in your original article, then on March 6 at 4:46 BobC comments, “What about a third of life science teachers being creationists” Your reply , March 6 4;57 was Bob, yes,yes,yes. Perhaps you need to work on your reading and retention skills!