text:
- Christopher Halliwell
- Brookhaven, MS
- United States
Secondary Education Physics, Mississippi State University
This conversation is closed.
Should public schools be allowed to teach creation myths in science class?
Should christian political parties be allowed to circumvent the scientific method by using politics to put mythology in science textbooks?
Closing Statement from Christopher Halliwell
This conversation contains strongly differing opinions about public education. However, those who commented in favor of introducing creation myths into science textbooks were always religiously motivated. This is no surprise. Instead of appealing to the validity or truth of their respective creation stories, theses people appealed to "teaching the controversy". My response:
There is no controversy concerning evolution in the scientific community. "Teaching the controversy" of creation stories vs evolution is equivalent to teaching astrology next to astronomy, or alchemy next to chemistry, or magic next to electromagnetism. Without any verifiable claims to test, creation stories are not scientific. Ergo they do not belong in a science textbook.
Feb 24 2013: Of course not.
Ideology, religious beliefs, politics...none of these should not be allowed to steer the curriculum.
As Lawrence Krauss has stated on numerous occasions...The purpose of education is to not to validate ignorance, but to overcome it.
Feb 25 2013: Is it more ignorant to deny information, which creates a taboo around said information. Or, is it more ignorant to allow "ignorant" information to be educated, knowingly?
Feb 26 2013: What are you saying here? I honestly don't understand your response.
Creationism is based on ignorance of the world and how it runs. It denies evidence and replaces it with wishful thinking.
Just because you want to believe something realllllly bad doesn't make it true. It makes you delusional.
There is no controversy between the theory of evolution and the hypothesis of creationism and the mountain of evidence supporting evolution has to be what is used to set curriculum not some half baked religious interpretation from a book of myths.
Feb 26 2013: No surprise you do not understand...Feb 26 2013: Who is denying there are creation myths?
Who is stopping teaching about them in history or literature or religious studies?
No issue with debate.
Just science class is to teach science. Creationism is not science. Its not biology. It's not geology.
And its not creationism in general they want to teach, just a particular version that fits their theology.
6 one eyed gods could have created the universe 6 seconds ago as it is now and giving us fake memories. There's a new creation myth for you that is just as falsifiable as many others. And there is another problem. Supernatural claims like this are not falsifiable. It's not science.
It's almost anti science. Here is something we don't understand fully, so god must have done it.
There is a time and a place to debate discuss young earth creationist claims etc but science class is not the place to teach non science alongside science.
Grace Greene
Feb 24 2013: If it were a science, then yes. But as it is a myth, it could be taught in a mythology class, alongside the myths of Thor, Mithra, Odin, and the others.
- +4
Mitch SMith
Feb 26 2013: In their current form, public schools should not be allowed.
- +3
Everything after that is moot.
Minsky is good value.
Feb 26 2013: accurate analysis. seconded.Feb 26 2013: "God created everything" is not a scientific theory, because it is unfalsifiable. It is impossible to have an experiment or an observation that would prove it wrong. Karl Popper wrote: "A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice." http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html. Therefore, creationism does not belong in science class.
However, in the same essay, Karl Popper writes: "...historically speaking all — or very nearly all — scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth may contain important anticipations of scientific theories...if a theory is found to be non-scientific, or "metaphysical" (as we might say), it is not thereby found to be unimportant, or insignificant, or "meaningless," or "nonsensical." But it cannot claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense — although it may easily be, in some genetic sense, the "result of observation."
Creation myth is a valuable part of human culture and has many great philosophical points. I see nothing wrong teaching it to kids as such, but outside a science class.
Scot Wilcox
Feb 26 2013: No, I don't think so. I'm a Christian, and I happen to believe that God did create the world. I don't dispute evolution either, maybe God used it to create the world or made it look like it was made by evolution. Whatever, that's not the point. Public schools are not the place to discuss that kind of thing. Science is science, with all its limitations and advantages. It shouldn't be tampered with by political/personal views with either an atheist or religious slant.
- +3
Paul Redling
Feb 24 2013: Science class is for the facts. I agree with the current curriculum (I say current being a High School student). While I can appreciate the "inequality" presented by teaching just the facts (I'm assuming you mean that it sort of supports atheistic thinking because the facts coincide with their beliefs), I don't think that SCIENCE class is the place to instill the word of god into the minds of the youth (or Norse creation, Greek creation, etc.). If you really want that taught at a public school, I'd look into English class (or maybe, if you really want to push it, History).
- +3
But science, especially for younger children, is and always has been taken as gospel (yes, I recognize the irony). Including other creation stories that have been disproven is not only dangerous to the children's mental development, it is unscientific. It's like doing algebra in Music Appreciation or something. I wouldn't mind adding the christian creation story to the curriculum of public schools, as long as it went alongside other creation stories, and stayed OUT of science class.
Feb 25 2013: WoahWoahWoah, slow your roll. No scientist or student of science should ever believe what they are told strictly based on the authority of the teacher/ professor. "Taken as gospel" is really a statement of believing something based on the authority of the source. Science has no use for this. Either the person presenting the theory has evidence, or they do not. You base your belief or nonbelief in the proposed theory on whether or not you were convinced by the evidence. If the evidence is not convincing, then the teacher did a very poor job explaining the theory.
Feb 25 2013: Agreed. But at certain points, scientific facts are articles of faith. When my chemistry teacher taught us about atoms and subatomic particles, I smiled and nodded and memorized what she said. Later, I came to a more complete understanding of the facts and concepts.
Feb 25 2013: If you put faith in scientific ideas, that is nobody's fault but your own. With just a little effort, you could have researched the concepts that you did not understand.
You may have put faith in science, but I do not. My confidence and trust in any specific theory is a direct result of my understanding of the evidence presented for it. If I am not convinced, then I have no right to say I believe based on faith or any other ridiculous reason that some people give for their beliefs.Feb 26 2013: Schools shouldn't teach mythology as science or science as religion.
I don't see any harm, however, in teaching science as science, religion as religion, and mythology as mythology.Feb 25 2013: Christopher, "Creation myths", Christian Political Parties", "circumvent", "put mythology in" wow.
You do not want a debate you are looking for a fight with this approach.
Feb 26 2013: Robert,
You are correct in that I used strongly worded descriptions for my title. This was done purposefully to pre-alert all commenters to my personal stance on the topic. I created this conversation to learn more about how the TED community feels about this issue. I appreciate your input.
Feb 26 2013: Christopher, You have certainly came to the correct forum (TED) to argue against religion. However, a 2012 Gallup survey reports, "Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process."
National Academy of Sciences states:
Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth's history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.
—National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism
Since you have taken a position in absolute disagreenment to anything religious being acceptable and I have taken the stance of appreciating both sides of the argument and seeking a plausable solution .... we are at odds and I see no willingness to bend in your position. Therefore I suggest the following quote:
Let that which is of Ceasar be unto Ceasar and that which is of God be unto God.
I look forward to conversing with you again on a subject that we can openly discuss and appreciate each others views.
I wish you well. Bob.
Feb 27 2013: Hi RW,
Are you suggesting that the popularity of creationist beliefs is enough of a reason for it to be taught alongside established biology, geology, cosmology etc?
I personally have no issue with discussion and debate in the appropriate forums. I just object in principle to special interests and political lobbying getting special treatment for their world views alongside established science, by passing the scientific processes, essentially a free pass for a loud voice.
My views are reinforced in this case because I support the separation of church and state (schools). I don't think government schools are the appropriate place for religious indoctrination even when creator is disguised as an intelligent designer.
Any criteria for what special interest topics get taught as alternatives to established science. Put it to a vote at the local education authority? A phone poll? Or just anything you happen to agree with gets in?
Personally I think science classes should teach the best current established science. If that changes over time, and it will, the curriculum can be updated. If we find evidence of a species of angelic animals, they can be included in biology. If we find gods responsible for the force of gravity, that can go in physics. But lets leave it to scientific processes to decide what the best science is and not special interest groups. Controversy is not the standard by which we decide what goes in school curriculum in my opinion.
I guess "One nation under god" upsets some US secularists and maybe a few polytheists.Feb 27 2013: Thanks for the reply. I have the same question as Obey. Are you suggesting that the popularity of creationist beliefs is enough of a reason for it to be taught alongside established biology, geology, cosmology etc? If so, what is your reasoning?
"Since you have taken a position in absolute disagreenment to anything religious being acceptable..."
That is not what I have said at all. I am against anything nonscientific from being in a science textbook. As soon as ANY religion develops a verifiable claim, we can talk science. As it is, no religion has anything to do with science. In fact, quite the opposite. They tend to resent an effort to actually understand the world we live in. Instead, they seem to only want to take solace in their beliefs. I don't know about you, but I would rather know the sad truth than continue to delude myself in a blissful lie.
A drunkard can be happier than a sober man, but that's no more to the point.Feb 27 2013: If I were to be taking that stand I would have argued that the lack of popularity would be basis to discontinue the subject of science in education. That is an assumption on your part. Bad science to assume.
The National Academy of Science, religious leaders and scientists seem to be able to play together nicely. You stated that you used the terms in your explaination intentionally to state your position on religion versus science. You also state in your bio that you are atheist. This appears to be an opportunity for you to grind a anti-religion ax and not really about schools. You also state you are a teacher. As strongly as you have stated your case and anti-religious views I would be concerned for any student who did not share your views.
If I wanted my children to be education in a religious environment I would send them to a church school or private school based on a religion of my choice.
I do not know about drunkards ... I will have to trust you on that.
Feb 28 2013: Hi rw. It was a question. Not an assumption.
Actually, not sure if you were replying to me or Chris.Feb 28 2013: I assumed nothing. I asked you.
My personal anti-theist stance does not affect my belief that myths should not enter a science textbook. Regardless of your spritual beliefs, we should all come to the conclusion that science should be the only thing in science textbooks. I would thank you not to throw ad hominems at me.Feb 28 2013: Obey, To Chris ... There was no reply button for your reply.
Thanks for taking the time. Bob.Feb 25 2013: Absolutely, given they properly teach evolution theory.
The suppression of any information will make it leak out regardless of any one or group's objectivism. Allow both evolutionism and creationism, children are more intelligent than we give credit for. (Why? I feel as though parents believe they know what's best, and that blinds them to know children are highly adaptable at young ages - with or without your cognitive awareness of their natural states of mind.)
WE are talking about children EDUCATION.
Indeed creationism is unfavorable to those of the scientific community (and who value 'science'), but while we argue this.... We waste time being practical with our scientific achievements - miles of psychological based research being done every moment. While we sit here and worry about how we began? We hardly understand our current conditions.
There is no question politics and religion go hand in hand... The debate of our founding father's 'God'-based faiths, should be seen along side of their political philosophies... Separation of church and state is idealistic at best. Religion is as personal as it is communal. To neglect the impact religion REALLY has on political manners, is to not realize how a debate like this begins - by distracting you from the real issues.
Information isn't the problem. I was raised to believe in the Christian-Catholic God but was given the room to guide myself into understanding God is as unique to every individual, let alone religion.
Let the FUNDAMENTAL Christians win. Creationism should be allowed.
Real knowledge and knowing cannot be suppressed or eliminated, it can only be ignored.
If you really feel it is destructive to allow creationism to be taught along side of evolution, you must ask yourself a few things:
What is it I am afraid of?
When is more perspective bad?
How can we expand creationism?
What makes creationism appealing?
Is this theory limited to Christianity?
What is the best argument for/against creationism?
Feb 26 2013: In terms of deciding curriculum your questions are poorly chosen and biased to the creationism side.
If you are teaching science you need to define what science is to start with.
If you do, you will realize that creationism is religion dressed up.
If you want to "teach the controversy" you have to first understand that there is no controversy. There are only a few strident fundamentalists screaming in the dark that their interpretations of a few pages of their magic book in interpreted their way. To give it the time it is worth in an average school year is to spend about 5 minutes on it.
Evolution has been around since before Darwin and has mountains of evidence for it.
Creationism has no evidence and no working theory to replace it.
Feb 26 2013: Your ENTIRE position is biased, while I attempt to find a middle ground, you have no other motive besides to side with your beliefs. I know you won't understand the irony, so I will try to explain as clearly as possible.
Science has no unifying definition, and if you consider Kuhn (Structure of Scientific Revolutions) to be the best explanation and way to define what science is and how it works... Then we haven't taught science right in school for generations. As science takes consensus, community, consistency and higher practices of the above. Oh which, by the way, theologian cultures have similar systems of checks and balances.
Creationism isn't religion, it's a theory that originates from religious doctrines. Which, is not strictly bound by religious scripture but also philosophers and scientist - but you wouldn't know that since you are so fundamental about your beliefs....
Never once did I use the word controversy, in fact, I made it very clear, it would be obvious to children that if we taught both creationism and evolutionism, the child THEMSELVES would figure out the truth, without your flawed objective views.
Creationist, if they are genuine, understand evolution may be a part of the creation process and God had designed us to evolve in a certain way over time... You cannot disprove this idea... And to deny it with no reflection, is stupid.
My questions are not in favor of anything besides opening up the debate.
More perspective is never bad. Understanding the arguments for creationism can make evolutionist more equipped to debate. Understanding alternative creation stories/myths/theories and/or expanding them - will grant more awareness.
See? while your approach actually proves more limiting, it ultimately would create a taboo. Mine would get children to your desired objective "goals" anyways, but without actually being an objectivist with education. And being pragmatic or existential.Feb 26 2013: It's not about suppression. No one is burning bibles or churches in the US.
Have the debate in debating class if you like.
Teach creation myths in humanities.
It's a slippery slope to let special religious interests hijack any subject. Do you really think evolution would be taught fairly along side a particular interpretation of supernatural creation?
Let the peer review process deal with scientific controversies. Even most new peer reviewed scientific findings turn out wrong (especially in medicine). But over time they get improved or discarded. Teach the established scientific theories like evolution not any special interest religiously inspired hypothesis, especially accredited ones like ID.
So happy to debate in schools, but not to teach special religious interests.Feb 26 2013: Actually information can be suppressed e.g. North Korea. Although it is harder in open societies and with the internet?
Do you actually think US citizens who want to learn creationism can not find information outside of science classes?
Creationism is not suppressed, its just not appropriate for science class. Is everything not taught in science class suppressed?
Creation stories come from religions. And the creation story ID proponents want taught is a version that is compatible with their particular theology. It is disingenuous to claim creationism has nothing to do with religion, even when the replace creator with intelligent designer.
I suggest you are mixing up the question of what should be taught in science class with censorship.
I'm happy if they even acknowledge there is a controversy at the start of th class but then teach science.
Not letting special religious interests inject non science into science classes is not total censorship or suppression, its about teaching science and not being a tool for religious indoctrination.
From distant memory I think you will find in the Dover trial ID failed the religious test, and is unconstitutional to be taught in state schools.
Separating church and state is not total censorship. People are free to express their views just not via state instruments such as public schools.
Feb 26 2013: You're begging the question.
And avoiding my positions entirely.
Who cares if it is in science class? Most of the people on TED are guilty of overstating what science is anyways.
If the debate continues, in which pushes creationism out of science class, that won't stop anything. In fact it will help the fundamentalist cause of spreading their ideologies - they will have MORE reason to keep being closed minded.
Like most of you are being here.
Creationism - intelligent design - is not only limited to Christianity or theologians but philosophers/scientist.
Indeed, a giant premise of creationism is faith based, but you have no idea how much evolution actually is.... It's a theory! Yes, we evolved, but HOW, WHAT exactly evolves we have very little idea...
If at any point creationism is getting more favored in a classroom than evolution theory, than guess what? Looks like neoatheist, and non-religious folk are going to actually need to organize instead of being militant for militant sakes.
Religion isn't going away, to be arrogant enough to suppress a LARGE group's desire to want to bring their traditions of science into the schools, let them. Be the bigger people.
Most people overstate the word 'science' so often, the word gets devalued and is made into an alternative religious ideology. Maybe with some information which is 'clearly' not science ina science class, children can decide for themselves.
Because, again, this isn't about you all, it's about children.
They will be able to filter the information being paralleled with it's contrary position. To try and protect and prevent this religious agenda of creationism in school, will only backfire overtime.
Essentially, Obey, stop being petty, and put faith real knowledge will always outshine falsehoods.
But the question of God should be as scientific as any other question, because it is open still and like I said above/below - this neoatheist trend needs to hit the limelight or its just pathetic
Feb 27 2013: How am I begging the question?
Because science is naturalistic and deals with falsifiable claims?
Because most views of creationism have a religious or supernatural context.
Because intelligent designer is generally code for a god.
I also have a different view of what a scientific theory is. Its not the same thing as colloquial usage. Look it up.
I do acknowledge the prevalent theories may be updated or discarded at any time when a better one comes along. If a better alternative comes along than evolution, happy to teach that. But creationism or any other views shouldn't bypass the peer review process etc just because some people don't agree with the science. Have you thought through the precedent of teaching whatever influential special interests groups want rather than the best science?
Maybe we have different ideas of what science is.
I work in a Research organisation so I might have a different perspective to you.
I'm all for the debate. But in the proper place.
You seem to be implying I'm a neo atheist. I've been an atheist long before the current trends. I'm not really an antitheist either. I support freedom of religion, along with the separation of church and state. This issue relates to the latter.
Yes it is about the children. They deserve to be taught the best science and not be the playthings of special religious interest groups. Science class is not the place to teach every social controversy, or even worse selectively inject certain religious views that sit outside science.
Science class is also not the place to aggressively compare and debunk religious beliefs such as creationism or young earth. Just teach the science.
It's not petty to keep science for science class and the debate where it belongs. It is a sound principle, not petty.
Perhaps the pettiness is on the other side unhappy that their beliefs are not being given special treatment to be taught alongside the established science.
Anyway good discussion. Ta.Feb 27 2013: NL, just some thoughts on your last points :
"But the question of God should be as scientific as any other question"
I suggest it is. We have applied the scientific method for a few hundred years and found no empirical evidence of gods. I'm afraid invisible, immaterial, transcendent, entities outside of the reality we can test and observe, are concepts that the scientific method is not built for.
I agree we don't know if any beings outside of the reality we can test and observe exist or not. We really don't know what a reality outside the one we can test or observe means, or exists other than a human concept, let alone any beings in it.
"this neoatheist trend needs to hit the limelight or its just pathetic"
I don't think the separation of church and state (schools), or protecting science classes from special interests is just a neoatheist issue. As a parent, I want my daughter taught science in science class not the loudest special interest getting special treatment. Do you understand that. I don't care if it is creationism or something pro homosexuality that is not established science.
No issue debating or discussing the issue elsewhere.
Why should creationism get special treatment and not some equally speculative non established pro homosexual or pro feminism or pro racism special interests. Because they have the loudest voice?
In Australia we don't have a formal separation of church and state. In fact our head of state, of our constitutional monarchy, is the English Queen who is also the head of the Church of England. The Christian lobby has managed to get religious instruction (mainly Christian) and chaplains into state schools, which I also object to as a parent who supports secularism and freedom of religion and is antimonarchy. You might like it here. No constitution to prevent religious views (including sanitised creationism) being included in state curriculum.
Do you support the separation of church and state?
Do you accept ID is not established scFeb 26 2013: Your position seems to be heavily biased. Firstly, you seem to have a poor understanding of evolution. Your prejudice toward this proven fact implies you have a deep distrust of science. I impore you to cast aside any preconcieved notions or misinformation that you may have acquired in your religious indoctrination. As you study science, you will notice that it only deals with observable phenomena in nature. Religious views, however, are not based on verifiable information, nor does it claim to be contained within nature. Creation myths stem from a lack of understanding of the natural world. Since creation myths are always of a supernatural variety, they cannot be studied by science. Science only studies nature.
Essentially, I would like to you to start from scratch. Pretend that you know nothing about evolution or the scientific method and do some research. You will be surprised what you learn.
However, this topic is not about evolution, or any specific theory. This thread is about the movement of religiously motivated politicians attempting to put non-scientific fairy tales put in scientific textbooks. I look forward to your reply.
Feb 26 2013: You don't know me Chris, so it's understandable how you can misunderstand my position.
It's one that is a middlist, which values non-extremism. Had you read my profile, Einstein himself has something to say about trusting authority figures with information. We shouldn't entirely.
Science is not this flawless system of checks and balances. Since this conversation is talking about education and children - how about how science has allowed our youth to be pumped up with drugs? Not "science" fault? Political issue? Odd, they seem so closely associated, don't they? Since science developed the drugs, pharmaceutical companies campaign for their usage with scientist being the reliable sources. Indeed, a distrust of science, but not deep, just the right amount. To not give faith to a disconnected body of men (especially Western scientist) who are known to be sexist, racist and straight out white supremest - maybe not consciously, but their actions prove otherwise. (Check out feminist epistemology)
I am biased? While I attempt to look at what both sides of the debate can offer, your debate premises are not - you are proposing the idea of creationism in science classrooms is not tolerable. You have presented nothing but biased notions here. My only bias is to not have bias - which is a catch 22.
"As you study science" this indicates a lot of what I have said already on this conversation.. you can't just study 'science' it isn't a linear practice.. a scientist isn't a master of science, but a master of a specific specialized science...
Creation myths are as ancient as any other stories we have in anthropology and humanities. To dismiss them, dismisses our human lineage, which is clearly based on science/history, since the above are SCIENCES.
I read a good amount of evolutionary psychology, I can probably teach you a thing or two... lol which at this point is obvious.
Your last statement is, again, clear to your biased position.
Feb 27 2013: Nobody claimed that science is flawless. However science does check for flaws and corrects them if the evidence requires. Your position, on the other hand, is immutable. No amount of evidence could ever sway someone who's decision is based on faith. Faith is lack of a good reason to believe. If you believe based on faith, then what reason could you possibly have to accept actual evidence?
Yes, you are biased. Anyone who rejects evolution is either misinformed, or has not ever heard of it. Evolution is a fact. Welcome to the present day.
I would love for you to "teach" me something about evolution. I look forward to your "information" that you got from a creationist website about how evolution is impossible.
/sarcasm offFeb 27 2013: Hi CH, suggest we are all a bit biased, not just the people who disagree with us.
In this case I just think the case to make a special exception for creationism to be snuck into science class alongside established science doesn't stack up. All the principles or free speech, being against censorship etc is just a smoke screen.
You don't get to teach a special interest view on history that is not established history such as holocaust denial as an alternative to established history in history class. Similarly science class should not be used to give equal status to the loudest special interest world views alongside established science. That is the principle.
In addition, the US constitution prohibits the state establishing religion. Now they are no longer trying to teach Genesis 1 and 2 as science, but creationism or intelligent design is inherently religious in a non dogmatic sense. It supports the abrahamic monotheistic belief systems. It's not a Buddhist view or polytheist view. Imagine the text saying "the intelligent designer or designers", to fit in the polytheistics. May need some more changes to fit in Wiccans or Scientologists.Feb 27 2013: Scientist are people too.
Too assume they are people that NEVER exchange political exploitation (money for research) in return for favors, of the sort which are profitable either academically or monetarily...
You're right no one is claiming science is perfect, but when you dictate science as being the answer to the holy question "how does one live life?" - well, guess what, sounds pretty religious to me.
Scientific research is far from perfect, but what helps is theorizing - what you guys are talking about when you say it corrects itself.. But that, SLIGHT idea change takes a mountain of effort and work to do culturally, it's but people still talk about greek philosophers like they were born yesterday. It's maddening. Depending on the special field, there will be a general few paradigms these fields educate within. Necessary for development.
You're putting faith into an abstract idea of science. And defending it by saying scientific method or reason, or logic... That's because the neoatheist trend is very real. The paradigm of a culture originating in scientific communities, being watered down into propaganda (at times) and philosophical scaffolding (most of the time).
Faith isn't inherently irrational. It's what you decide to apply the faith to. Are you irrational for putting faith in science? (Or any type of strong belief) Eh, who is to say what irrationality really is? It's a more recent question of cog sci. We seem like we can be logical creatures, but we are not computers at the same time looking at ourselves like a computer makes us seem more like one and better understand ourselves. Yet, we still do not objectively understand these parts of our thinking which would be consider irrational to use in a certain sequence.
Do you even know what the word biased means?
Clearly I READ about evolution, in psych and humanities (namely culture studies).
Biology is only one field to apply evolution too.
Most creationist agree to microevolution, guy.
Feb 28 2013: Yes scientists are people with all the human dynamics and weaknesses that brings.
Its competitive. In the end the model or conclusions that best fit the evidence win out,until something better is found.
The steady state universe was the most accepted view until we found evidence the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate.
Im not sure irrational is the right word, but based on my understanding it would be misguided to assume science is a perfect process and not subject to human dynamics.
How do you define faith? If its believing something without sufficient evidence, well maybe irrational is a bit strong a term, for some situations, but it is fair to ask whether the belief is justified in terms of being correct. It is a different question to consider if it is useful.
I think my view of science is more balanced than the straw man you present. Its not perfect but it works better than any other process for understanding the universe. The evidence it works is in the technology we have from applying it.
Religious belief is understandable given our biological and cognitive make up. But does that make all religious beliefs correct. If they provide some personal or social benefits, that does not make them correct.
My view is not all beliefs have equal standing in terms of evidence to support them.
Are all religious beliefs rational given your current understanding of the universe. Is it rationale to assume gods are responsible for lightening, floods, mass murders etc. Is believing in Scientology rational? Is there sufficient evidence to believe the angel Gabriel dictated the Quran to muhumad over many years. Is there sufficient evidence to believe in Mormon beliefs about planets with Mormon gods. Was Buddha really born from his mothers side after she was impregnated by a beam of light.
So is it rational to have faith in extraordinary claim without sufficient evidence?. Or is personal religious experience and intuitive feelings enough?Feb 28 2013: I ran out of space.
Just wanted to ask if you were suggesting that if something is commonplace than it always rational?
Don Anderson
Feb 25 2013: The myth of evolution-creationism should be taken out of the schools.
- +2
Government should neither support nor infringe upon any religion, and currently public schools preach atheism via evolution-creationism and thus support a religion.
That is not to say evolution is a myth or religion, just that preaching evolution-creationism as the complete story is only a myth.
For example; it is true that flowers evolved to attract more pollen-feeding-insects, pollen-feeding-insects evolved to better use flowers. But pollen-feeding-insects could have not have survived before flowers, nor could have flowers survived before pollen-feeding-insects.
And that is just one example of how evolution-creationism takes giant leaps of faith to believe in.
Feb 25 2013: Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Public schools all around the world are teaching evolution because it is a demonstrable fact.
The myths in question are the creation stories that every culture has invented. Now that you better understand the topic of discussion, perhaps you could make a positive contribution to the conversation.
Feb 25 2013: WOW! Try reading a post before replying to it.
Feb 25 2013: As a matter of fact, I read your entire post before replying to it. You strayed off-topic by accosting evolution. This thread is not about the validity of any specific scientific theory. The topic of this thread is about your opinion on the political efforts to introduce creation stories into science textbooks.
If you reply to this message, please remember to stay on topic.
Don Anderson
Feb 25 2013: And my point was that the myth of creation via evolution is in the science textbooks, and should not be.
- +1
Science textbooks should not have any creation myth in them, including evolution as a source of creation.
Science textbooks could have a section on common theories of creation and that should include the today's common religions including Christians, Atheism, Buda, etc.
You question is based on the premise that public schools currently don't teach a creation myth and that is based on a premise that creation via evolution is a fact and not a theory. In all questions we need to examine the premises that base the question.
Feb 26 2013: Why in science textbooks. Sounds like history. Or the history of science. Or the study of religions.Feb 26 2013: Ah, so you have a deep distrust of science I see. If you cast aside your prejudice, you may just learn something. Evolution is a fact. Your religious indocrination is a lie, and just mere 30 minutes of research would prove it. Take the time to learn, you'll thank me later I promise you.Feb 25 2013: Don is correct,
This year in my Cog-Sci class, my professor made a point of noting popular creationist and evolutionist, and their arguments for their respective positions and counter-positions.
I am one to note the 'neoatheist' trend which is rising in this nation, let alone world. This trend, movement or what have you - is an unconscious paradigm (I have no other way to phrase it).
The 'atheist beliefs' are the foundation for the arguments. The Four Horsemen of New Age Atheism, anyone? All writers and scholars and SCIENTIST who write with these predisposed attitudes towards fundamentalism, and namely (more specifically) Judea-extremism.
The word 'religion' may get a lot of you atheist uptight, but let me assure you - the way most of you will define religion is not universal, but usually only involves the Abrahamics. Religion is also defined as the relationship with God - atheism is basically saying "I am God" - the difference between the alpha and omega, the creator of reality.... Why call this God? Because this momentary thinking is 'Godly' - the difference between true understanding and falsehoods - the kingdom of heave or hell.
Indeed, all of you Atheist believe religion is irrational. However, with developed studies of cog psych, research in cog psych of religion are able to determine moments where a fundamentalist FEELS 'God' is achieved by those who are profound disbelievers of God. This state of mind (God-feeling) is in all of us. How we all activate is dependent on our belief systems.
Neoatheism IS a disorganized religion today, it just looks more like a movement. It is not 'bad' per say, but it is bad when those who claim 'atheism' do not realize they are being religious to a degree.
At the point atheist go to meetings once a week, is the day when we realize religion is not the enemy. Fundamentalism, and namely extremism are the potential enemy...
Don believes evolution is in 'myth' form, and very much it is, as it is a theory and fact.
Feb 26 2013: I'm not a theist. I don't believe in any gods or goddesses. I also don't consider myself a god.
Just a human, homo sapian, a mammal that breast fed as a children, a primate with an amazing brain and consciousness.
You might consider being careful not top assume you know what "all of you" anythings believe.
Maybe follow your own advice. You claim all atheists define religion in regards to the Abrahamic religions. I don't. It's just most the theists we bump into in the West are Christians.
Why isn't it irrational to believe your subjective cultural or experiential interpretation of a psychological experience is the correct one and all the other contradictory interpretations from similar experiences are wrong?
Don't we know enough about the brain to know how so called religious experiences are brain activity leveraging different cognitive mechanisms. We you meditate or pray and feel that connection MRI's show the brain at work. Now we can not tell if there is some supernatural connection. but we know there is a natural mechanism at play. Denying the experiences is irrational. Assuming a supernatural dimension or particular religious interpretation of these experiences is also irrational.
Atheists meeting up doesn't make it a religion. Are there atheist groups yes. Humans are social and meet for all sorts of reasons. I suggest sports fans are more religious than most atheists.
I agree Buddhism and perhaps Confucionism have fulfilled a religious role in many societies with out gods. I would consider them a type or religion or something close to it.
Not having a theist belief is a long way from being a religion even if some gather together. Are political parties religions? Are Justin Beiber fans part of a religion?
No argument that there are some group dynamics at play with some atheists. But you need more than group dynamics to call something a religion.
How do you define religion in a way that having no theist beliefs is a religion?
Feb 26 2013: All your statements are indicative of your atheism beliefs.
You may not want to say your 'God' but you want me to prove things to you? And not in generalities? Because what I am saying conflicts with what you belief, that cause problems, no? Why? Because a feeling of discomfort... I would go as far to assume that discomfort can be comparable to a Christian when someone says "God is bullshit"... You think/thought you have a grasp even on your own thoughts, but are unaware of how determined your thinking is..
Atheism has done some harm to developing cultures. While the ideas used to be counter-Judea have backfired. Beliefs, religion, supernatural... These are ideas which are ANCIENT to give no benefit to their usage is ignorant. And many are guilty of saying "I have no beliefs" "religion is evil" "supernatural thoughts are wasteful" - without even entertaining the thought, NOW THAT IS PLAYING GOD - to be so arrogant as to not even think about the contradictory thought.
I would go as far to say every human being has these feelings of being God. However, for those who believe in a creator/omni-being ... well they can achieve those feelings in more ways than someone who does not. However, all feelings - yet, these feelings do come back to a God-idea.
Do I seem to at any point be campaigning a specific religion? No. I am dictating that religion is a natural condition to human beings, and as long as there are groups who keep denying such a reality with their belief systems... We are not going to progress as well..
Indeed, because sport fans talk about God and ethics and knowledge - smart comparison...
All we know, as of now, in cog studies is we do have this drive to know metaphysical questions... one of those questions is an original creator, it's a natural mechanism to question such ideas of the above. Take my word for it, and if you don't cog psych of religion, have a blast learning something anti-atheism movement.
Religion is both personal and socialFeb 27 2013: You can assume whatever you like about what I think and feel, just don't expect your assumptions are correct. And don't put words in my mouth.
People who don't have god beliefs are just as diverse as those who do.
Do you realise you are stereotyping and generalising in the extreme
I guess we disagree and agree on a lot of things. I'm not sure why you think I feel uncomfortable.
I have beliefs.
Did I say religion is evil? Don't put words in my mouth.
Did I say you were campaigning for a specific religion?
Did I say God is bullshit? Don't put words in my mouth.
When you get on a bit further in your cog studies you might take more care in jumping to conclusions, projecting your generalisations onto to people with limited data, to making a diagnosis with no data etc.
Also, from a debate perspective you have gone ad hominem, rather than deal with my points.
Buddhist meditation, atheist meditation does not come back to a god idea.
I agree that religious or supernatural type beliefs seems to reflect our cognitive make up. We seem inclined to assume agency, we hallucinate and jump to intuitive conclusions etc.
We search for meaning and understanding and build belief systems about how the universe works. Just some are supported by more evidence than others. We worry about dying. And we have language ability to pass on knowledge and culture from one general to the next.
I'm also all for freedom of religion. Not only do I think people should have this right, it also provides a space for non religious people.
I also understand how strongly religious belief can become part of a persons identity.
I'm not sure what your anti atheist stereotype rant has to do with the topic.
Do you support the separation of church and state?
Can all the different religious beliefs be correct?
Is the susceptibility of humans to be religious or have supernatural beliefs proof of gods?
Is the prevalence of religious beliefs a reason to include creationism in science class?
Feb 27 2013: We've argued before, I don't put words, I do assume. Assumptions is all we have - I cannot read your mind and can only gather so much from reading your comments.
I admit my hostility here is high. Yet, the minority here is creationism, and for this word to even have any value you have to understand there are a great number of minds behind this movement of information.
Consider saying "no" to the future Buddhist researcher who wants to sell a meditation session procedure + brain 'zap' = in order to alter our minds into transcendence, arguablely, unnaturally.
Why would you say no to such amazing knowledge....? (Same mindset as the fundamentalist of any religion, but not as good of an example..) However, if anything you respond to said answer becomes projected as hostile in the negation of their absolute ideologies... Dilemmas occur.
Let me put my thoughts in another way...
Early Creationism of the American Funda. Christian Movements (working title) - would actually drive the scientific community into a huge theologian 'conflict of conditionals' - but, ultimately - Evolutionism would actually grow stronger as movement of thought within scientific communities. Paradigms in every field of scientific study would be reflective of evolutionary studies - biology majorly of course. Mr. Dawkins would inspire a new generation of irreligious thoughts.
Now, ignoring most of your questions...
Controversy can do so much more for objective knowledge, than believing there are absolutes. Understanding both sides of the argument better prepares you to support yours with their knowledge. Creationist make arguments for microevolution all the time. They will not reject facts, just merely alter their interpretation. But life is all about interpretations through perspectives. That's where my mind is at while we continue debating.
We are talking education. Not epistemology or virtues of scientific exploration. Education comes first, and foremost. In this debate, for me.Feb 27 2013: 1.Of course there are diverse people in general, but the fact is when you label 'atheist' you place yourself into this religious battle of 'science v religion' and get into ridiculous semantic disputes. Religion is as individual as communal. For those who are irreligious under the label 'atheist' are neoatheist or new agey -atheism, agnosticism, theism, and gnosticism are qualities of a religious foundation - God. "Religion is one's personal relationship with God" - You have no relationship with "God"? Some may say "you are missing out." Others, "that's okay God is there anyways." A few, "whatever God is love/Goodness - as long as you are strong with those virtues, you are with God"
2. God is an ancient idea, not going away, expanding it in school would be devastating for future generation of fundamental Christianity. Christianity of course never going away - but, will evolve and grow with facts and truths which are unchangeable by efforts of research through passionate and dedicated, philosophers and scientist. Expand any thought, it will blow up with more questions.
3. Again, Never meant to put words, I was generalizing - but your arguments for "science" are indicative from all of the above... your background of knowledge foundational for learning... Your thought paradigm... We have argued before, it has taken a lot of dialogue for you to open up as more than an atheist - although you keep labeling thoughts as such. Even indirectly. "Science" this "science" that - these are attitudes of this movement.
4. Again, semantics...
Indeed, 'peak experience' 'enlightenment' 'satori' - these ideas/conditions are not necessary of "God" in any sense or even usage of the phrase. You're right, absolutely, but at the same EXACT time. More people will understand the idea of 'satori', in the West, with ideas of God attached. Religious Knowledge - Epistemology.
5. We are God my brother. You and I. Without us, there is no beginning nor end. All powerful with imaginationFeb 27 2013: 6. Church and state will never separate - "Church" being the symbol of religion - religion will always effect decisions. Making my original point with founding fathers important! I understand you are not American, but America inspires this world, it is a commodity - era-based philosophy is usually European-N. American in general. Central figures for all first world nation... A lot of people today are "religious naturalist" like, ancient Greek philosophers, Pagan, polytheism - naturalism. These inspiring thoughts of nature being the means of understand reality, through natural philosophy (science)... That becomes their religion. Religion is a part of the human patterned natures.
7. I never attack person or character. I attacked your thoughts. Ignorance does not reflect personality - only knowledge/intelligence. The word ignorance has terrible taboo - but, the idea one receives from another as having something more of 'knowledge' seems personal at times. Not my intention. My intention was to insight such an open response and multiplicity, I think I got that.
We should exchange more info Obey! You have always been the Aristotle to my Socratic thinking.
8. Yes... To be a fair society, to be ubermen, to be better than who we ARE - we must always allow majority to rule. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... What keeps the majority distracted from ruling is minority thinking. Although NEEDED and REQUIRED for a society to be virtuous, minority should work with the majority... And attacking core beliefs, seems to be an issue with transferring data between humans.
9. It is not a question of creationism, itself. It is a question of education. To deny information which can be relative to other, better information... Never a bad thing.
10. Fear... May be why people do not want creationism taught in science. Without evolutionism, there would be no creationism and vice versa. It is all giant conflicts of science... More conflicts like that are good.Feb 28 2013: Thanks for the comprehensive comments.
We actually agree in some aspects, but are perhaps talking about slightly different things.
I agree religious beliefs and other values will inform humans who govern us. For me secular government is about government not forcing these views on the people.
So forcing atheists and politheists to say one nation under god crosses the line.
Using government land or resources for just one religion crosses the line.
You can't stop people voting with their conscience, but using government resources to support or favour religion crosses a line we can protect.
Suggest the best democracies to live in protect minority rights.
Didn't Aristotle get in trouble for not honouring the gods. And anger Alexander for criticising his claims of divinity. Happy to be associated with him.
Now I understand some of your comments. They are based on previous discussions. I may have slightly softened my approach and outlook.
One thing that stood out for is using controversy as a enough of a reason to teach something in science class. We may just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
If science found good evidence we were designed, I'd accept that. Although I'd probably assume aliens most likely unless we found evidence of a creator god. But the most popular definitions these days seem to be for something outside time and space, immaterial etc whatever that means. To me its a bit like describing something that you can not detect because it doesn't actually exist. What is the spirit realm. What reliable information do we have that it exists as more than a concept. Oops off topic. Don't answer.
Also, seems fair to assume the burden of proof is on the theist, not the non believer.Feb 28 2013: You demonstrate your prejudice yet again. There is no such thing as a set of "atheistic beliefs", since the only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in any deity. We do not have any tenents or rules or requirements. Buddhists are atheists. Infants are atheists. Most Japanese people are atheists. Merely being unconvinced of the existence of a diety makes you an atheist.
I hope you take the time to learn about the people you ignorantly condemn.Feb 24 2013: Myths and metaphors are an important first stage of a thinking process. I think it helps throw the first rays of light into the dark recesses of yet-to-be-discovered knowledge.
Once we are able to throw more light into that darkness and things becomes more certain, it can then move from the Mythology class, through the philosophy classes and into the Science class. Education generally should reflect the way we think and neither science or mythology should be dismissed as one without the other - but they do have their correct place.
The problem arises when we get too entrenched in mythology and unwilling to move on to accept the facts that arise from it.
Zdenek Smith
Feb 24 2013: " Myths and metaphors are an important first stage of a thinking process. I think it helps throw the first rays of light into the dark recesses of yet-to-be-discovered knowledge. "
- +1
Why myths and metaphors rather than reason and logic should be first stage of a thinking process?
"Once we are able to throw more light into that darkness and things becomes more certain"
Science goal is to throw more light into any "darkness". I see myths to be quite the opposite, creating false views and creating confusion with unreal tales and stories.
"Education generally should reflect the way we think and neither science or mythology should be dismissed as one without the other - but they do have their correct place."
So which myths, religious beliefs, mystic, supernatural, psychic beliefs will you teach and can anyone make up their own beliefs? How will you deal with opposite beliefs that contradict science and each other? Wouldn't this lead to a chaos?
Feb 24 2013: Because reason and logic follow intuition - in that order. If all thinking was only down to reason and logic, how would we perceive anything lying just outside the reach of empirical knowledge? Reason and logic make decisions based on 'what is' and intuition and metaphor form pathways to 'what could be' - an essential hierarchy, if knowledge is to move forward into pioneering territory.
Mythology is just metaphor with the volume turned up. It helped the ancients to perceive something in the absence of science to clearly define it.
As intuition is an evolved function of the human brain, I am personally loath to dismiss it, or indeed any closely related function that helps the intuitive process - like metaphor.
Sometimes metaphor can be much more powerful in solidifying one's perceptions of 'definition' within chaotic or complex entities. As an example, I am more likely to find the red-giant Betelgeuse in the night sky because I know it is situated in the constellation Orion; I know where to look, because the ancient mythological image of a warrior's belt and sword in the stars, leads me to it.
If Betelgeuse blows into supernova within my lifetime and I see a bright light coming somewhere from the direction of Orion, I'll know exactly what it is - because ancient mythology has guided my perceptions through to spectacular science and astrophysics.
Zdenek Smith
Feb 25 2013: I agree that intuition has its important role. However I don't see it being more important than reason and logic.
- +1
"Mythology is just metaphor with the volume turned up. It helped the ancients to perceive something in the absence of science to clearly define it."
Yes I agree and I think it is a good subject in the history class but not in the science class?
"Sometimes metaphor can be much more powerful in solidifying one's perceptions of 'definition' within chaotic or complex entities."
It's good to use metaphors and I don't think anyone objects in using them. However mythology is not scientific and again it should be kept in history or philosophy classes, not science classes. The purpose of basic education is to allow kids to understand how our society and world works without being drawn into thousand contradicting beliefs of their parents and communities?
Mark Kurtz
Feb 24 2013: I agree that religion should not be included in science classes. Although humankind over thousands of years attempted to understand the unknown and developed myths in massive attempts at searching for answers, it would not be correct to classify all of man's beliefs as untrue by classifying every non-science belief as myth. People somehow know there is more than what is observed by sight or other senses or by scientific observation with varying exploration.
- +2
It is not right for people to demand others accept their beliefs. Religious affiliation is OK for individuals, but to demand others give up their will and become subservient to a doctrine is not a concept Jesus taught his followers, a group identity later to become known as Christian. Neither should scientists demand of believers of any doctrine or theology to give up their experiences.
Let science attempt to explain the beginnings of material reality! Science has this invitation to do so. Let people search for truth through philosophic exploration of the scientific unknown details of possible realities. There is no need for man to fight over these things. Let man have his beliefs.
What matters most is our relationships with one another! We can be civil and loving and that is the pathway to peace---real peace. There are other details on this pathway. Putting others down is not a scientific requirement nor is it a core belief of Christians or others.
Barry Palmer
Feb 24 2013: Myths are taught in literature class, and should be.
- +2
Scott Reil
Mar 1 2013: But Chris if we add "ology" to the end of the word, it becomes science. That's why we have doctors of theology. And I want to become a unicorn vet when I grow up... ;)
- +1
I am with you my friend, for the most part, but just wanted to clarify a point. Any human construct to date is subject to change as humans evelove (or not), religion included. But we are in full agreement that human evolution has been stunted by religious thinking, and the rush to move God to the science classroom seen in far too many places in this country (your current address not excepted) is more of the same.
Arkady, religion IS a threat to folks talking like Chris is. In Mississippi, where just a few weeks ago they finally ratified the abolition of slavery (140 years late), talking like Chris has could get you killed; indeed the guy who finally ratified slavery has already been getting threats. And despite the outward leanings of the organizational church (the Southern Baptists actually voted in support of desegregation in the early 60's), there is no doubt in my mind I can go find preachers in the Deep South who would happily provide me with biblical "proof" of the white man's superiority to this very day.
Entrenched belief is not easily swayed by political musings or even factual presentation of scientific evidence; look at the belief or disbelief of global warming. It is not surprising to find in my country it breaks down along conservative vs. liberal lines, closely mirrored by religious belief (conservatives being far more likely to be religious). INdeed it has become so much a factor of the belief system vs. science, that belief in science is lower among many conservatives than the belief in God.
And THAT'S dangerous. REALLY dangerous. Because you can sell somebody who thinks like that anything. Genocide as patriotism, prejudice as duty, belief as science... we have too many examples to count. People like that are far more dangerous to me and the world at large than gay guys marrying.
Mar 2 2013: I understand all of that. However, it is incorrect (as in "contradicts observations") to say that ALL religious people are racist, sexist, anti-homosexual, genocidal, anti-science, etc. I did not live in the U.S. South. My experience with religion is a lot different. Religious people I meet are tolerant and kind. There are churches in my city explicitIy welcoming homosexuals.
I do not like the tendency to label and associate religion with depravity. People use religion to justify what they have in their own heart. What they have in their heart does not come from religion or science. It comes from their heart.
I still stand by my words - it does not make sense to get angry at intolerant people. How does it help to fight intolerance? "If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." -- Hermann Hesse.
What does help is to always question our own opinions and attitudes - be it in science or religion.
Mar 2 2013: That's a very good point. Not all proponents of religion are homophobic, sexist, support slavery or anti science etc.
Mind you often the source materials are.
So full credit to them for seeing past that.Mar 2 2013: ology, doesn't it just mean a field of study.
Theology is a field of study, but perhaps not a science in the strictest sense.
After all it typically starts by assuming something divine exists with no compelling evidence which is the antithesis of modern science.Mar 2 2013: Theology is not a scientific discipline.
In order to be a scientific discipline, the field of study in question would need to make verifiable predictions. Since theology is the study of the concept of god, it has no testable claims.
I am appalled that you would take this issue to lightly. This thread is about a critically important issue. There are crazy people in Tennessee right now that are trying to change the laws to prevent evolution from being taught in school. For your information, they are doing things much worse! Do some research and you would know that they are also trying to pass a law that would require all teachers to tell a student's parent if they suspect their child is homosexual.
If you still think any religion is a force for good in this world, I implor you to reconsider.Mar 1 2013: Christopher, forgive me if what I say may sound like preaching to you. Writing this does not make me any better than you.
I may be wrong, but in your question and in some of your replies, I sense some anger. I could find a dozen Bible quotes on anger, but if you prefer evolution, I can try to explain why anger is destructive and I recommend to get rid of this attitude.
You may agree that our emotions are a product of evolution. It's also understandable why we catch emotions of each other as social species. When one person feels fear, others start to feel fear too even if they don't know the reason. Likely, it helped our ancestors to survive. Likewise, when you smile to others, others smile to you. When you are angry at other people, other people become defensive and angry at you. It's very simple. Anger often results from fear as a self-defense mechanism - also explainable by evolution.
What are you afraid of? Do you feel threat from religion? Even if it is so, if you react with anger, you will meet anger in response. What can be the result of it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFnFr-DOPf8Feb 28 2013: One aspect of the creationist or intelligent design position that doesn't seem to be mentioned below is they are basically saying we don't know, or can not imagine any natural way that life could start, or certain biological features such as the immune system or bacterial flagellum could occur naturally.
If something appears as though it could not have function without all components it must be designed.
Philosophically this is pretty close to relying on an argument from ignorance, which is questionable as something to teach in science.
Furthermore, other scientists, including theists, have gone away and looked at these supposedly irreducibly complex "constructs" and filled in a few more gaps in our understanding by finding examples of biological devices that are made up of some of the components.
For example some bacteria have a biological syringe made from a subset of components of the bacterial flagellum. It is not irreducibly complex.
The universe and life is extraordinarily complex. Just because we don't understand or are incredulous about how the planets and moon could stay in there orbits, or how atoms work, how gravity works, doesn't make little gods holding them in place or holding us down a good argument if no evidence.
Likewise a creator god is an open philosophical question. I understand where some proponents are coming from, thinking there is evidence here of a a designer, a creator because these things could not happen naturally. I understand the frustration. But I suggest firstly some of the claims have been tested and found false regarding irreducible complexity. Secondly, positing something supernatural as an explanation for say the origin of life is not a great fit for the scientific method. How do you test it? But I get the frustration as in a way science begs the question by excluding supernatural magical causes.
Injecting gods or designers into gaps, fanning controversy, is that science or politics and philiosophy
Mar 1 2013: Obey,
I agree with everything you've just said. I do not claim nonexistence, I am simply unconvinced. However your quote, "But I get the frustration as in a way science begs the question by excluding supernatural magical causes." assumes that supernatural anything has been observed. It has not. In fact the entire universe is nature. Ergo if something is not natural, it does not exist.
Mar 1 2013: Hi Christopher. I understand what you mean, if goblins exist they are a natural phenomena.
Although I'm not sure you could call human contraptions natural, although they are just rearrangements of natural materials by a natural animal.
But I think you also understand what I mean. That modern science does not look at magic or transcend causes.
Re: I do not claim nonexistence, I am simply unconvinced. Me too.


text:
I think this year will be big for MS products. Why? Because they're doing 'cool' advertising and putting a lot of effort into it (supply issues aside...)
This is just my view of the situation.
Apple got huge because they went big on advertising their products as being cool. Big gamble, paid off. There were better devices at the time of the first iPod, but no one else did simple ads with bold colours and catchy tunes to sell theirs. Apple had no competition in that space.
From all the comment sections I read us geeks all seem to think the 'average user' looks for specific features and specs when purchasing, and a killer feature is what sells. I personally think most people just pick something they're familiar with, something that stands out visually or just ask the store person which is the best, at which point they generally just get directed to the most popular product.
MS are now doing an apple, flashy ads with cool looking devices, dancing and suitable tune. My wife has a Surface RT and Lumina 920, because she wanted the 'laptop with the pink keyboard' and the 'bright yellow phone.' Her requirements are facebook and the internet, which were the only questions asked. I confirmed those things would work and so decision made.
Apple on the other hand are using the same ads, similar looking devices and pushing one or two features that mostly do nothing. I see it as their magic charm wearing off.
Android I think took off because a) the market was flooded with devices, worldwide and b) they went big (physically) and found a want for it. I say that was mostly just because they stood out: 'ooh that phone is bigger!' etc and I believe that's when the popularity took off.
So, I think MS are now being the cool guys. Big advertising, striking devices in appearance, a unique UI look and finally starting to get a proper presence (stores, Nokia). They just need to get the production line into gear. From all the stores I called in Melbourne looking for my wife's 920, they all said the same thing: demand was huge for the Nokia Lumias but they didn't have stock. Assuming they get the stock flowing properly soon, this year should be strong for them.
2013 will be very interesting, particularly if a) MS start shipping quantity, b) Apple don't do something spectacular and c) BlackBerry get some traction. Would be great to see a four way battle for our money with Android, Apple, BB and MS all around 25% at year end.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Smoking Cessation Series LC760-834-3798; call for series information and cost. Read More
Pre-Diabetes and Diabetes Education — FreeThird M of month, 5:15 to 6:15 p.m. PS760-773-1403; pre-registration not required. Read More Lunch and Lose ACTU through Sep 24, noon to 1 p.m.Lisa Lindley, MD, Gynecology/Obstetrics, certificate in Obesity MedicineWeekly class provides focus on weight loss, nutrition and support.760-568-1234 Read More
Updates in Treatment of ER/PR Positive Breast Cancer and Triple Negative Breast Cancer LCCancerCare TeleconferenceW, July 31, 10:30 to 11:30 a.m.760-834-3798 Read More
Cancer Information on the Internet…User Beware! LCLunch and Learn with the ExpertW, Aug 7, noon to 1:30 p.m.Alison Mayer Sachs, MSW, CSW, OSW-CDirector, Community Outreach and Cancer Support760-834-3798; light lunch, register by Aug 6. Read More
Caring for the Caregiver: It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint LQArgyros Health and Wellness SeriesTH, Aug 8, 5:30 to 7 p.m.Alison Mayer Sachs, MSW, CSW, OSW-C760-610-7205 Read More
Bariatric Surgery Information ACSA, Aug 10, 10 a.m. to noonW, Aug 21, 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.Bobby Bhasker-Rao, MD, General Surgery760-778-5220 Read More
Be Happy…Foods to Elevate Your Moods ACM, Aug 12, 1 to 2 p.m.Eisenhower Clinical Dietitian760-568-1234 Read More
Breaking the Salt Habit LQGreat Living Starts Here SeriesW, Aug 14, 1 to 2 p.m.Rosalind Elemy, MA, RD, CSOEisenhower Clinical Dietitian760-610-7205 Read More
Most classes and lectures are free and early registration is recommended. For a full listing of lectures, events, programs and support groups, visit emc.org/calendar. Online registration is available for most events.
AC Annenberg Center for Health Sciences at EisenhowerLC Eisenhower Lucy Curci Cancer CenterLQ Eisenhower George and Julia Argyros Health Center, La QuintaPS Eisenhower Health Center at Sunrise, Palm SpringsWould you like to have someone from Eisenhower Medical Center speak to your organization on a health-related topic? Please contact Vanessa Shanks at 760-834-7956 for more information.
By: Sandra Lodan
Three years ago, Martinez hurt her neck while playing "horse" with one of her sons. She tried to put the injury out of her mind and go on with her busy life despite the progressively worsening pain, weakness and numbness in her arms and hands. That changed, however, when Martinez and her sister, also a former college volleyball player, challenged each other to a game of beach volleyball during a family vacation in San Diego last August. Before she knew it, Martinez had collapsed on the sand in agony.
An MRI at Eisenhower Medical Center revealed a large herniated disc in Martinez's neck that was compressing and inflaming a nerve root, causing a condition medically defined as cervical radiculopathy — commonly called a pinched nerve.
Diligent research and multiple referrals led Martinez to Shahin Etebar, MD, a Board Certified Neurosurgeon specializing in the correction of spinal deformity and adult degenerative scoliosis; spinal reconstruction due to failed surgery, cancer, and trauma; diagnosis and treatment of brain disorders and tumors and minimally invasive spinal surgery. Complex spine cases represent approximately 95 percent of Dr. Etebar's work.
After ruling out more conservative modalities such as medication, a cervical collar or pillow, physical therapy or epidural steroid injections, Dr. Etebar determined the most effective treatment option for Martinez would be an anterior cervical discectomy with fusion, a surgical procedure to relieve nerve root compression that is one of the most common and successful types of spine surgery.
Martinez's surgery was scheduled for September 2012. The procedure involved making a small incision near the front of her neck. Dr. Etebar then removed her intervertebral disc to access the compressed neural structures and relieved the pressure by removing the herniated disc that was causing the compression. He then placed a bone graft between the adjacent vertebrae. The final step was to insert metal plates for extra support and stability to help ensure proper fusion.
"From the beginning, Dr. Etebar and his team were great — very professional, caring, attentive and detail-oriented," Martinez raves. "He took the time to explain everything to my family and me and to address all of our questions and concerns. After the surgery, Dr. Etebar visited me every day in the hospital."
"The surgery was a total success," continues Martinez. "The day after surgery, the pain was gone and the feeling was already returning. I'm especially pleased about how minimal the scar on my neck is."
By Thanksgiving, Martinez reported feeling great and was functioning at 95 percent of her normal activity.
"Our team includes fellowship-trained neurosurgeons working in collaboration with a team of highly trained professionals — all dedicated to providing the desert community with the highest quality of spine care, using the latest technology and the least invasive techniques," explains Dr. Etebar, who is also President of Eisenhower's Medical Staff.


text:
Nighty Night
Release Date: 1/1/1970
Product Code: nightynight
Ready for a slumber party. Skipper® doll looked adorable in blue with white polka dots! Her shorty pajamas had lace trim and she wore them with yellow scuffs. Her other accessories were a princess phone and paper "face" mirror with metallic paper mirror
All images and descriptions courtesy of Collector Books, publisher of "Barbie Fashion: Volume 1" and "Barbie Fashion: Volume 2" by Sarah Sink Eames
Production doll may vary from the photo shown above. Mattel reserves the right to modify the fashion/fabrics, sculpt, hair color/style, and accessories. Doll cannot stand alone as shown.
Collector Photos
No one has uploaded any photos.


text:
Ikat Sham
We re-created the gentle, geometric shapes of traditional woven Ikat in our printed percale bedding, resulting in a sweetly sophisticated look.
- 100% cotton percale finished with neutral piping
- Reverses to solid neutral cotton voile
- Polyester fill ensures cozy yet lightweight warmth
- Sham is finished with an envelope closure and solid piping
- Imported
- Machine wash
- In petal, lilac, aqua or linen
- View bedding dimensions
Shown in lilac.
Ikat Sham
Celebrate someone special. Add an initial, name or date to personalize gifts, apparel, bedding, decorative accents and jewelry.
- Personalization is centered on the sham
- Size and shape of embroidery designs have been thoughtfully considered by our design team to best complement the product
- Monogrammed/Personalized items are considered custom order items and are non-cancellable, non-returnable and non-refundable
Ikat Sham
Ikat Quilt
Ikat Toddler Quilt
Featherblend Pillow Inserts


text:
Product Details
STi Magnum Radar Detector by Beltronics®. TotalShield™ technology by Beltronics® makes the STi Magnum completely invisible against any type of radar detector. Not only will it keep you unseen by the current VG2 and Spectre, it will be completely undetectable by any future threats as well.
- Exclusive TotalShield™ Technology
- Digital Signal Processing
- Next Generation of Laser Protection
- Easy-To-Use Options and Controls
- Brightness Control with Full Dark Mode
- High Definition Text Display
- Mute and AutoMute™
- Comes Fully Equipped
- Limited One-Year Warranty
Patented AutoScan™ by Beltronics® feature continuously analyzes all incoming signals and automatically rejects unwanted false alarms. This gives you, the driving enthusiast, the perfect balance of long-range detector performance without those annoying false alarms. Multiple laser sensors, strategically positioned in the case, continually search for laser gun signals. Maximum range, including superior off-axis protection, is standard.
The STi Magnum comes complete with a comprehensive owner's manual with quick reference card, quick release windshield mount with suction cups, our unique coiled SmartPlug™ lighter adapter with convenient mute button, alert lamp and power-on indicator, and molded zipper travel case.499.95
Brand: Beltronics Part Numbers:
Beltronics offers the best performing radar and laser detectors on the road, including the all-new Professional Series models. The new Pro 500 has GPS technology that provides permanent relief from false alarms including automatic door openers and motion sensors. The new STiR Plus is an installed, high performance stealth defense system for radar and laser that features Ka-band selective programming for faster response times. The new STi Magnum features TotalShield™ Technology by Beltronics® that makes it completely invisible against any type of radar detector "detector". Avoid traffic tickets and higher insurance rates today. Invest in Beltronics where Performance Rules.Product Reviews (3)
Every Customer can leave a review about our service and the product that was purchased. In order to leave your review for your new product, please follow the link in the email you receive after completing your purchase. You can rate appearance, ease of installation, price/value and product quality.Beltronics® - STi Magnum Radar DetectorAverage Rating: 4.8 of 5APPEARANCEEASE OF INSTALLATIONPRICE/VALUEQUALITYAll Beltronics Reviews(4.5)APPEARANCEEASE OF INSTALLATIONPRICE/VALUEQUALITY| Posted by Rennick | (Oakville, CA)
I mounted this on a BMW R1200GS motorcycle and am using it with a radar detector. I did not use the bracket that holds the speaker, but rather used velcro and two O rings to hold it on a motorcycle bar mount. I carry a baggie in my tank bag to keep it dry when I park it overnight outside. It works very well.1 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful for you? YesNoShare this review:(5)APPEARANCEEASE OF INSTALLATIONPRICE/VALUEQUALITY| Posted by Roger | (Olive Branch, MS)
The windshield mount with suction cups for my Beltronics radar detector are very solid and easily mounted to my windshield. The mount holds my detector firmly in place and allows for easy removal of the radar detector from the mount with the press button 'Lock Release' function.3 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful for you? YesNoShare this review:(5)APPEARANCEEASE OF INSTALLATIONPRICE/VALUEQUALITY2002 Ford Taurus | Posted by Joseoh T | (Hinesville, GA)
I would like to say that the Shifter ZR4 is easy to install; nice product; I would recommend to everyone. Thanks, CARiD, for the great service, making this purchase happen so smoothly!3 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful for you? YesNoShare this review:
Product Reviews (3)
Product Reviews (3)
More Accessories
You will never pay more with CARiD! Not only will we match prices from any competitor's website or other reputable source, we will continue to honor that promise for up to one year after your purchase.
We'll match the price at time of purchase, or refund you the difference if done after the purchase. Either way, we are totally committed to providing you the best online shopping experience.
We're car and truck enthusiasts, just like you! And it's enthusiasts we hire in our Sales and Service Centers. Many of our staff are ASE certified and have spent years in the retail auto business.
We conduct our own in-house training, and we even bring vendors to us for hands-on product training demonstrations. You're getting true expertise when you phone or email us!
With hundreds of vendors, and tens of thousands of components for sale, we put tremendous effort into coordinating our data with our vendors' data in order to guarantee that you get the correct part.
Our huge database is regularly cross-checked to keep it current and optimized. At times, our thoroughness makes our data even more accurate than our suppliers! This rigorous process means that you can always order with confidence.


text:
In case you've missed the multitude of articles concerning end-of-year tax-planning, here are the two most important moves you should consider over the next few days.
Reality television has exploded in recent years with top stars bringing in large sums for their exploits. You may not have eight kids or live in New Jersey, but what if you'd like
The main players in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps are men, as is the target audience. Being a woman who works in finance I'm left a bit dismayed — and as it turns out, I'm not al
If splitting the cost of rent and utilities with your significant other sounds like a good idea, you're not alone. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 7.5 million unmarried couples
Disclaimer: The links and mentions on this site may be affiliate links. But they do not affect the actual opinions and recommendations of the authors.


text:
Moderators: Tonyblack, Jason, Toothy
wicked woman wrote:Know what you mean about silly rules chilli. Our car has the airbag light on that's a fail. So we fix it... or just take the bulb out and it will pass.
Glad jose passed.
Will of Lancre wrote:Of course that is just code for ''unable to check rear seat belt as can't be arsed to remove child seat".
Congratulations to José on passing.
Here in Luxembourg the only testing centre used to be in a little place called Sandweiler. So "My car has to go to Sandweiler" is the usual way of saying "My car has to have its MOT". Confusingly, they have now opened two other testing centres, but everyone still says Sandweiler, though they may qualify it by saying "the Sandweiler at Esch" or "the Sandweiler at Wilwerwiltz".
chillicamper wrote:We have a pass!
No advisories either - which I think is pretty good for a 38 yr old vehicle.
The only slight downer was I got the bloke to do service this year - just to check I hadn't been doing anything wrong over the last 4 yrs. He reckoned he couldn't get the oil cap on the engine so bent the lugs so it would fit - but all you normally have to do is talk to Jose nicely and he lets the cap fit! . Got home after 8pm last night from the 25 mile trip to pick it up to find the oil cap had rattled off cos it was too loose . Luckily there wasn't too much oil on the engine. So then spent another half hour adjusting the cap so it would fit and stay tight. Ho Hum. Still I have another year's MOT which means another years camper adventures
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests


text:
Our Cardiac ICU creates a family centered environment that also harnesses the latest critical care technologies.
Heart failure is a serious condition where a child's heart cannot pump enough blood to the body. This can be a result of many diseases. The common causes of heart failure include cardiomyopathies or viral myocarditis, where the heart muscle is not strong enough to pump blood, or complex congenital heart disease with structural defects where the surgical options are either unavailable or have been unhelpful.
Through Children's National Heart Institute, Children's National has a comprehensive Heart Failure Program which focuses on managing young children and adolescents with heart failure through the help of latest medical therapies including Ventricular Assist Devices (VAD) and, in selected cases, heart transplantation.
Children's National has partnered with Washington Hospital Center, a leading center for heart failure, VAD, and heart transplant therapy. Children with heart failure who are deemed candidates are offered heart transplantation. They are supported with the help of VAD if their heart function is extremely poor while they are waiting for heart transplantation.
A VAD is a device used to support heart function while awaiting heart transplantation. It is a mechanical pump that supports essential blood flow to the vital organs for children with weakened hearts. The Heart Failure Program offers the Berlin Heart EXCOR® Pediatric VAD and other approved continuous flow devices for patients. Dedicated multidisciplinary management, an integral part of care of these children, is provided by our Cardiac Surgery, Cardiology and Cardiac Intensive Care Teams.
Children's National Heart Institute has a dedicated heart failure team, consisting of physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, respiratory therapists, social workers, pharmacists, occupational and physical therapists, and child life specialists, who work intimately with each family to provide the individualized attention they need.
The Heart Failure Program complements our many other renowned programs within Cardiac Surgery, Cardiology, and our state-of-the-art Cardiac Intensive Care Unit. Children's National is the only facility in the region to offer these comprehensive services for infants, children, and adults with congenital heart disease.
Teresa, 2, was diagnosed with cardiomyopathy and waited on the Berlin Heart EXCOR® Pediatric Ventricular Assist Device (VAD) for nine months while she waited for a heart transplant. Her heart arrived on Christmas Day.
Niti Dham
Deneen Heath
Janet Scheel
Venkat Shankar
Division Chief, Critical Care Medicine; Respiratory Care Services
We design our health care with kids in mind, and deliver assurance when parents need it most.
Have a question about a specific disease or condition or treatments or services we offer?
We see children locally and globally who need the kind of specialized expertise and child-focused care we offer.
Our providers represent medical and surgical specialties, family practice, and general pediatrics.
Pediatric specialists work closely to ensure an integrated approach to care for each child and family.
We offer resources for families to help answer questions and ease your child's hospital experience.
We provide a wide range of clinical services, specialties and treatments dedicated to improving children's health.


text:
This product is currently sold out.
You can obtain status and/or reserve this item by contacting us. We can also be reached by calling toll free 1-866-326-9377 (Dialing from outside the US +01 314 772 3566) between 10AM and 6PM CST (-6 GMT).
The HUGO BOSS Narrow Striped Ankle Sock is made from a comfortable blend of stretch cotton and nylon. Cotton allows for absorption and breathability with nylon allowing for strength and shape retention. The HUGO BOSS sock features the logo on the ankle cuff and the toe seam along with narrow striped pattern along the sock. This great everyday sock is perfect to wear for casual wear, and is a great alternative to plain athletic-style ankle socks.
70% Cotton, 28% Polyamide, 2% Elastane.
Machine wash cold. Use only non-chlorine bleach when needed. Flatten socks to dry or tumble dry low. Do not iron. Wash with similar colors.
|US (Shoe Size)
|UK (Sock Size)
|DE (Shoe Size)
|One Size
|10 - 13
|43 - 46


text:
Previous Page
Main Page
Order List by:
Date Posted
Road & Bridge Restrictions for Oversize/Overweight Motor Vehicles
SR 167, Milepost: 5.2, Direction: N, Date Posted: 6/10/2015 12:59:00 PM, Original Date: 12/14/2010 12:00:00 AM
No overlegal axle weights, legal loads only. Maximum weight 105,500 lbs. Vehicles over 10,000 lbs, USE RIGHT LANE. No restriction when traveling EB from SR 512 onto NB SR 167 or when traveling SB from SR 161 onto NB SR 167; restriction only when crossing over the Puyallup River Bridge on SR 167.


text:
How to Calculate Shipping
Many times we will list
the first few characters of the model number that can
be associated with individual parts. This is the model family, not the
entire model number. This does not mean that in every case
that this is the part you should use. It is just meant only as a reference. You
MUST know what part number you need, or, in many cases, you will order the wrong
part. To make the issue even more complicated, many parts on older systems
are no longer available, or they have become obsolete, so a different part
number must be applied in order to replace the part. We offer several ways
for you to find out the correct part number by using our staff of
specialists. All of these services are FREE. Our customers receive the correct
part the first time over 99% of the time if they use our FREE part finder
service! READ WHAT OUR CUSTOMERS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT OUR GREAT CUSTOMER SERVICE
You can contact our Parts Counter Here.
Subscribe to our
RSS feed
or read our Blog.


text:
Occupational Therapy Assistant Technology Alumni
The Occupational Therapy Assistant Technology Program graduated its first class in December of 2008. Now, over 100 of our graduates work throughout the state of Ohio. Our alumni work in various settings including schools, skilled nursing facilities and hospitals. Several are continuing their education by working toward more advanced degrees in healthcare or Occupational Therapy.
If you are an alumnus and are interested in connecting with us for service or learning opportunities, we invite you to call at 440-964-4316. If you have any ideas for this alumni page please let us know. Learn more by reading the latest newsletter.


text:
American Association of the Deaf-Blind
American Foundation for the Blind
Division of Services for the Blind
Helen Keller National Center For Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults
Metrolina Association for the Blind
N.C. Lions Club VIP Fishing Tournament
National Family Association for Deaf-Blind
National Federation of the Blind
Serving customers who are Deaf-Blind.
Services are geared to meet the very specific needs of Deaf-Blind individuals in achieving equal access, effective communication and a better quality of life.
Staff at the regional centers assist Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Deaf-Blind individuals in achieving equal access, reasonable accommodations and effective communication in a variety of areas in their communities.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), passed by Congress in 1990, ensures that people with disabilities are not discriminated against in:
The civil rights law for people with disabilities requires the removal of barriers that prevent individuals from getting jobs and utilizing public services that people without disabilities have access to daily.
Other laws that protect the rights of people with disabilities include:
Communication Support is provided to individuals and/or agencies. The purpose is to ensure that Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Deaf-Blind consumers have full participation in daily life activities such as meetings, appointments, family gatherings and social activities.
Our staff can provide support as it relates to the use of various types of communication that can assist an individual with hearing loss more fully participate in a variety of situations. Information on assistive listening systems is offered by DSDHH Regional Center staff. This includes information and consultation regarding the coordination of communication services for medical visits, job interviews, training and education classes and others.
Interpreter Services Information: Information on interpreter services and guidance in the coordination of interpreter services is provided by each of the Regional Centers. Requests made by employers and service providers are accommodated.
Assistive Listening and Visual Systems: The communication process for individuals who are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Deaf-Blind and Deaf with other disabilities is aided by:
Information of importance and interest to Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Deaf-Blind citizens is made available by the staff of DSDHH in a variety of ways. General information is provided to anyone contacting or visiting a center on many topics including:
Information of deafness and hearing loss is provided to:
Referrals are made to the appropriate programs and agencies that help meet the needs of the consumers in each region. Referrals are made to programs that include but are not limited to:
By determining the needs of the individuals who seek help from the DSDHH Regional Centers, the staff is able to give appropriate information based on those needs. Follow-up with the individuals assures that all possible resources have been sought and that the situation has been satisfactorily resolved.
Information and follow-up are provided in the following areas:
The Regional Center staff provides valuable training and educational opportunities to the local communities. Types of trainings include, but are not limited to:
If you have a specific training need relating to deafness or hearing loss please contact your local Regional Center. They will be more than happy to create training to fit your needs.
DSDHH is responsible for providing the residents of the state of North Carolina with information about deafness, hearing loss and deaf blindness. DSDHH has a number of outreach tools used for the purpose of educating communities about our services as well as deafness and hearing loss events. DSDHH has a variety of informational fact sheets and brochures, we have informational booths and exhibits and we have quarterly calendar of events.
If you are interested in receiving more information about DSDHH, deafness and hearing loss or you are an event organizer and think this type of information would be beneficial as an exhibit, please contact the Regional Center that serves your county.
All individuals who are Deaf-Blind or have both hearing and vision losses, their family members, agencies and organizations that serve them, and individuals interested in learning about Deaf-Blind or hearing/vision loss issues, may ask for our services. There is no charge for most services.
Contact one of the seven Regional Centers


text:
Vol State GED and English Literacy/Civics Education
Submitted on July 03, 2013 at 2:31 PM
Vol State GED and English Literacy/Civics Education
Volunteer State Community College manages the Sumner and Macon County Adult Education programs, formerly coordinated through the Sumner County and Macon County Boards of Education. The primary classes offered are GED prep courses, designed to get people ready to take the GED high school equivalency exam. We will also have English Literacy/Civics education (EL Civics) courses for speakers of other languages. EL Civics combines English language learning with information about the United States government and American society.
What we offer:
-GED Preparation classes including GED FastTrack and the Official GED Practice Test
-English Literacy/Civics education classes (EL Civics)
-Workforce literacy skills
-Individualized/small group instruction
-Basic education classes
Classes are offered during the day and in the evening at various times in both Sumner and Macon Counties.
How to get started:
New students will need to complete an assessment and an orientation session to register for the program. Call the office in your county to get started.
Where to find us:
Sumner County
The offices for the GED and EL Civics Program for Sumner County are located on the Vol State campus at 1480 Nashville Pike in Gallatin in the Warf Building Room 126. You can park in the Pickel Field House parking lot off of the Gap Blvd. entrance to the college. The phone number for the Sumner County office is 615-230-3621 or toll free at 1-888-335-8722, extension 3621.
Macon County
Macon County classes will be held at the Adult Education Center, located behind the Macon County Schools offices at 501 College Street in Lafayette. The phone number for the Macon County Center is 615-666-2125.
For more resources and info please visit the web page: www.volstate.edu/GED
A service provided by the Office of Public Relations.


text:
Home / Collections / Trends / Ladylike
When is a high rise not exactly a high rise? When it's Chyna! These peep toe platform heels have a 1" platform and 4" heels, which gives you the height but makes you feel as though you're wearing 3" heels. (And they'll still make your legs look impossibly long!) Buckle detail across the vamp. Padded footbed for all-day comfort. Imported. Leather upper. Man-made lining and sole. 1" platform. 4" high heels.
Style Code: NWCHYNA High