Ed Brayton's lame excuses for Mark Farmer
Ed Brayton wrote,
Farmer had written to Caldwell and said:"Specifically I would like to know whether or not you support the word of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ being taught in our public schools. This is an issue I feel very strongly about and would need to know your position before making a decision to financially support QSEA."
And Caldwell took this to mean that Farmer advocates teaching about the word of Jesus Christ in public schools. But it doesn't say anything about advocating or supporting that; it says that he "feels very strongly" about it. And in fact he does; he feels very strongly that it has no place in a science classroom, but might have a place in an objectively taught comparative religion class.
This is the kind of weaseling that makes it virtually impossible to debate about anything with Ed "It's my way or the highway" Brayton. There is nothing in the above quotation of Farmer that makes any distinction between teaching the word of Jesus in science class and teaching it in a comparative religion class. And what is taught in comparative religion classes is not relevant to the QSEA. The QSEA's mission and policy statements -- here and here -- make it clear that QSEA is concerned only with science education.
Ed continues,
His reply to Caldwell makes that very clear, yet he and Luskin are still using that quote as though it proved that Farmer was "posing as a Creationist who advocates including religious teachings in biology."
Even though Farmer is not "posing" as such a Creationist now, he was certainly "posing" as such a Creationist when he sent the email message above. Caldwell naturally assumed that Farmer was talking about science education because QSEA is concerned only with science education.
Labels: Ed Brayton (1 of 2)
3 Comments:
Caldwell appears to be the most disingenuous creationist yet.
His "mission statement" contains the following:
<< By "Quality Science Education," we mean a science education that exposes students to scientific evidence that supports Darwin's theory of evolution, as well as scientific evidence such as the Cambrian Explosion that poses challenges to Darwin's theory, as recommended by the California State Board of Education. >>
This is like saying that hyperbolic comet orbits "pose challenges" to Copernican heliocentrism. True. (Yawn.) So what?
zyozqdqg said...
>>>> This is like saying that hyperbolic comet orbits "pose challenges" to Copernican heliocentrism. <<<<<<
Actually, most comets have elliptical orbits. Because (1) these ellipses often have very high eccentricities and (2) the comets are visible only when they pass close to the sun, the comet paths might have the appearance of parabolas. Often, conic sections -- circles, ellipses, parabolas, and hyperbolas -- can become virtually indistinguishable when we look at particular short sections of them. For example, primary telescope mirrors of apertures under about 25 inches and focal ratios of 10 or greater do not have to be parabolized because spherical shapes of these specifications deviate from paraboloids by approximately 1/4th the average wavelength of visible light or less (a typical hair or piece of paper is about 100 wavelengths thick).
> Actually, most comets have elliptical orbits. <
You may never again say that anything is off the subject with any credibility. Your response, while interesting for a change, only shows that you missed zyozqdqg's point. What's new?
Post a Comment
<< Home