quote:

What is interesting is the Catholic church initially opposed Darwinian evolution, but not because of genesis. They opposed it, and not without reason, for the fear it would be turned in to social darwinism, that the rich were rich because they were superior, which a lot of the high and mighty did embrace as a corallary to physical evolution (it would be great if the Catholic Bishops would remember this with their insane pushing of politicians who are pro life and anti gay, but who also promote Ayn Rand and the idea that the rich are blessed *gag*).

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

....To the contrary, teens in states that prescribe more abstinence education are actually more likely to become pregnant(Figure 2).

Lies, damn lies & statistics.. and the dimocrats that push them.

Such cleverly constructed wordsmithing.

Buried in the text of said observation that pregnances in white girls are 28.7 per thousands; black 108; hispanic 147. That single fact alone explains your pregnancy map more than adequately - and far better than the smug assertion that it is due conservative policies.

Actually not, as always.
From the study

quote:

we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state.

Unlike cons actual scientists do think.

Here's a little thought experiment. Map teen pregnancy rates by state. Correlate by racial distribution.
See how it varies from the authors map.

Answer: Not much.

Ergo, what I said was accurate.

And as for 'scientists'. She's an associate professor of plant biology.
She ignored two major variables known to strongly influence teen pregnancy rates and said her results strongle suggested that comprehensive sex education was in order. Thats like doing optical astronomy during the day and saying the results prove more powerful telescopes are in order.

What exactly does race have to do with it? If abstinence works how does race even play a part in that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Can I just say that as one of the very few non Americans to comment on this thread - I've really missed this sort of convo? It's great fun, looking in from the outside. Of all the advanced industrialised countries, only the USA could produce a heated debate about the merits of teaching abstinence. Every other first world country realised it was a dead duck decades ago.

Oh well, the USA is exceptional, no doubt. There are all sorts of rules of social policy that *just must work* in the USA though they've never, ever worked anywhere else, any time in history. Pray continue.

Oh and BTW: I've realised that the ace card - that of 'Brits telling Americans what to do and forgetting that they lost the War of Independence' - might well be played by any silly old bearded goat at any given time. This is entirely fair enough. I'd like to point out at this juncture that yes, we Brits still do own your country and will send in the gunboats and redcoats should you not grow up and be sensible. I'm sure that Rule will back me up here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If you're having sex, you're not abstaining from having sex. What else could there be? You can't abstain and have sex at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
if are you practising to write a better obituary for Jacques de La Palice you need some more efforts...
look at Phydeaux numbers: abstinence classes reduces pregnancy risk by a 30% in the 12-14 age range, condom by an 85% if used without skills and 98% if used correctly. And by the way I think that in the 14-18 age range that 30% becomes a 0%. So there is no queston about what is better for saving the kids bodies, if the problem is how o save their souls than it is a different problem that I really don't care.

Are you attempting to link the education classes with the practice? That's not a legitimate practice.

I do not support "abstinence only" sex education, as I have stated a few times here. The success rate of the classes has no bearing on the success rate of the practice. Outside of the "Virgin Mary," are there any other instances where a woman who didn't have sex got pregnant (outside of the artificial options I mentioned before)? The story of the Virgin Mary may or may not be true. If it isn't, then there isn't even one instance where abstaining from sex resulted in pregnancy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I agree with some of what you said.

But the real agenda here which is being disguised is: WHO should do sex education for our children.

By shifting the debate advocacy about what kind of sex education should be taught, the left triest to ignore the much more fundamental questions:

a). Why is this an overriding federal issue. Why is this a federal issue? While I agree that the left feels there is a compelling issue for their constituencies I don't agree it thereby becomes judicially a compelling interest, especially in light of enumerated separation of powers.

b). Our public schools are consistently failing to teach even the barest minimum: reading writing, and arithmetic.

Something like half of all high schools graduate; somewhere around a quarter are functionally illiterate.

Why in the world would we want to add to the responsibilities of an organization that has failed so profoundly in its primary mission.

Why would we want to divert any attention from its mission to teach?

Thats like buying a lemon car from a dealer, and coming back and buying a cell phone from him.

Is that really the only idea you can come up with?

The fact is that the left want to boost its core constituents - results be damned.

No, Phydeaux, it is becase we have parents like Sarah Palin and her dumb ass husband, who cannot talk about sex rationally, but rather put it in the context of religious faith, say 'thou shalt not have sex until you marry, lest you be a slut" and so forth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, here, you are wrong. I didn't say the Theory of Evolution was wrong, just that it hasn't been proven completely. There is evidence, but there are holes and gaps.

Teaching Evolution as "this is what science thinks happened" and Creation/ID as "here is another theory that others think explains it," doesn't demean either, but it also doesn't teach something as settled science when it isn't settled science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY
They are not dumb. Abstinence is a philosophy based mostly in religious belief. Religion teaches you that by faith you have to believe something even if all the evidence says otherwise. This is what my Christianity teaches, its what my Bible says and it is what most people of faith adhere to.
Science teaches that verifiable outcomes cannot be rejected. As a person who loves and believes in science I realize now that if science and religion merge, neither one of them make sense.
Until I participated in this discussion I honestly could not figure out what the big deal was with teaching creationism in science class. I figured it couldn't hurt to allow it. This discussion changed my view on that. When you promote faith as science some people get to the point where they cannot tell the difference........ And they are not just different, they are polar opposites.

Do they have a complete timeline of the Evolutionary process yet? Or, are there still gaps, and assumptions involved? If it's not complete, then, it's not settled science, is it? When I was in college, the dominant theory on how a muscle contracts was explained as the "Sliding Filament Theory." It was explained that it wasn't completely known to be true, but that most people believed it was. If you can only "believe" it to be true, then it brings in some elements of faith, doesn't it? Faith and science can not co-exist, as science knows while faith doesn't.
I'm not opposed to teaching Evolution in schools. I'm also not opposed to exposing kids to Creationism or Intelligent Design as possible "other" explanations. We don't know exactly what happened at this time. And, it should be taught in that manner.

You are wrong about evolution, and the argument you are giving is how the creationists and such go about promoting their cause. In a nutshell, they argue because evolution has holes in it, gaps, that the entire thing isn't fully understood (which any scientist would tell you is true), then somehow that makes the whole idea that organisms evolved from lower creatures wrong, and that is silly.

And, here, you are wrong. I didn't say the Theory of Evolution was wrong, just that it hasn't been proven completely. There is evidence, but there are holes and gaps.

Teaching Evolution as "this is what science thinks happened" and Creation/ID as "here is another theory that others think explains it," doesn't demean either, but it also doesn't teach something as settled science when it isn't settled science.

What is really interesting, is that there are people who cling to Evolution as tightly as some cling to the Bible; it's almost like it's their religion. There are gaps in our understanding, but people accept it as Gospel, applying faith where science hasn't shown the proof.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, here, you are wrong. I didn't say the Theory of Evolution was wrong, just that it hasn't been proven completely. There is evidence, but there are holes and gaps.

Teaching Evolution as "this is what science thinks happened" and Creation/ID as "here is another theory that others think explains it," doesn't demean either, but it also doesn't teach something as settled science when it isn't settled science.

1. creation/ID isn't a theory.

2. Evolution is a fact. That is settled science.

3. Yes there is theory of evolution which mortars many many facts together into a coherant narrative and that mortar may well change here and there from time to time but that doesn't mean that the facts disapear. The "gaps" in evolution where it's theory simply aren't big enough to shove creation/ID into.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
How nice of you to say that my religious belief - and the beliefs of a billion Catholics are irrational - not to mention a billion christians. And said with such humility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I agree with some of what you said.

But the real agenda here which is being disguised is: WHO should do sex education for our children.

By shifting the debate advocacy about what kind of sex education should be taught, the left triest to ignore the much more fundamental questions:

a). Why is this an overriding federal issue. Why is this a federal issue? While I agree that the left feels there is a compelling issue for their constituencies I don't agree it thereby becomes judicially a compelling interest, especially in light of enumerated separation of powers.

b). Our public schools are consistently failing to teach even the barest minimum: reading writing, and arithmetic.

Something like half of all high schools graduate; somewhere around a quarter are functionally illiterate.

Why in the world would we want to add to the responsibilities of an organization that has failed so profoundly in its primary mission.

Why would we want to divert any attention from its mission to teach?

Thats like buying a lemon car from a dealer, and coming back and buying a cell phone from him.

Is that really the only idea you can come up with?

The fact is that the left want to boost its core constituents - results be damned.

No, Phydeaux, it is becase we have parents like Sarah Palin and her dumb ass husband, who cannot talk about sex rationally, but rather put it in the context of religious faith, say 'thou shalt not have sex until you marry, lest you be a slut" and so forth.

How nice of you to say that my religious belief - and the beliefs of a billion Catholics are irrational - not to mention a billion christians. And said with such humility.

And how interesting that promiscuity is both rational and virtuous.

Spare me the self serving ideology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, here, you are wrong. I didn't say the Theory of Evolution was wrong, just that it hasn't been proven completely. There is evidence, but there are holes and gaps.

Teaching Evolution as "this is what science thinks happened" and Creation/ID as "here is another theory that others think explains it," doesn't demean either, but it also doesn't teach something as settled science when it isn't settled science.

1. creation/ID isn't a theory.

2. Evolution is a fact. That is settled science.

3. Yes there is theory of evolution which mortars many many facts together into a coherant narrative and that mortar may well change here and there from time to time but that doesn't mean that the facts disapear. The "gaps" in evolution where it's theory simply aren't big enough to shove creation/ID into.

I have no quibble with the theory of evolution. But the statement "Evolution is a fact. That is settled science" is simply never true.

It is a Theory of Evolution, well supported by thousands of data points to be sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
But the statement "Evolution is a fact. That is settled science" is simply never true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
And how interesting that promiscuity is both rational and virtuous.

Spare me the self serving ideology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Spare me the self serving ideology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
if are you practising to write a better obituary for Jacques de La Palice you need some more efforts...
look at Phydeaux numbers: abstinence classes reduces pregnancy risk by a 30% in the 12-14 age range, condom by an 85% if used without skills and 98% if used correctly. And by the way I think that in the 14-18 age range that 30% becomes a 0%. So there is no queston about what is better for saving the kids bodies, if the problem is how o save their souls than it is a different problem that I really don't care.

Are you attempting to link the education classes with the practice? That's not a legitimate practice.

I do not support "abstinence only" sex education, as I have stated a few times here. The success rate of the classes has no bearing on the success rate of the practice. Outside of the "Virgin Mary," are there any other instances where a woman who didn't have sex got pregnant (outside of the artificial options I mentioned before)? The story of the Virgin Mary may or may not be true. If it isn't, then there isn't even one instance where abstaining from sex resulted in pregnancy.

Mary had sex with Naughtius Maximus......I seem to recall the Guiness book of world records had this british lady who was supposedly a virgin at the time she gave birth.....which I assume was she still had her hymen. I suspect there is more to the story with that, that either her hymen didn't break cause the guy was really small or something, or he ejaculated on her and it got up there...who knows?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
But the statement "Evolution is a fact. That is settled science" is simply never true.

The National Academy of Science disagrees with you:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=28
"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong."

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I agree with some of what you said.

But the real agenda here which is being disguised is: WHO should do sex education for our children.

By shifting the debate advocacy about what kind of sex education should be taught, the left triest to ignore the much more fundamental questions:

a). Why is this an overriding federal issue. Why is this a federal issue? While I agree that the left feels there is a compelling issue for their constituencies I don't agree it thereby becomes judicially a compelling interest, especially in light of enumerated separation of powers.

b). Our public schools are consistently failing to teach even the barest minimum: reading writing, and arithmetic.

Something like half of all high schools graduate; somewhere around a quarter are functionally illiterate.

Why in the world would we want to add to the responsibilities of an organization that has failed so profoundly in its primary mission.

Why would we want to divert any attention from its mission to teach?

Thats like buying a lemon car from a dealer, and coming back and buying a cell phone from him.

Is that really the only idea you can come up with?

The fact is that the left want to boost its core constituents - results be damned.

No, Phydeaux, it is becase we have parents like Sarah Palin and her dumb ass husband, who cannot talk about sex rationally, but rather put it in the context of religious faith, say 'thou shalt not have sex until you marry, lest you be a slut" and so forth.

How nice of you to say that my religious belief - and the beliefs of a billion Catholics are irrational - not to mention a billion christians. And said with such humility.

And how interesting that promiscuity is both rational and virtuous.

Spare me the self serving ideology.

Religious belief by its very nature is irrational,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
But the statement "Evolution is a fact. That is settled science" is simply never true.

The National Academy of Science disagrees with you:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=28
"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong."

And yet the very first line of your quote says evolution is a theory.

The oxford dictionary, fortunately removed from the perview of the National Academies, says nothing about the national academies definition.

fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true:

Since a theory is never proven, (only supported) it ergo cannot be a fact.

Looking in the miriam webster definition of "theory" we find:
the·o·ry
noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\

: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

Since you may not define an object in terms of itself (tautological) it seems that indeed, a fact is not a theory.


A quick perusal finds no other cases where the NAS calls a theory a fact. For example the theory of gravity is, wait for it: a theory.

So it seems that in our zeal to proclaim evolution a fact that the national acadmies makes a special exception for the word fact. Thereby removing themselves from the debate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
if are you practising to write a better obituary for Jacques de La Palice you need some more efforts...
look at Phydeaux numbers: abstinence classes reduces pregnancy risk by a 30% in the 12-14 age range, condom by an 85% if used without skills and 98% if used correctly. And by the way I think that in the 14-18 age range that 30% becomes a 0%. So there is no queston about what is better for saving the kids bodies, if the problem is how o save their souls than it is a different problem that I really don't care.

Are you attempting to link the education classes with the practice? That's not a legitimate practice.

I do not support "abstinence only" sex education, as I have stated a few times here. The success rate of the classes has no bearing on the success rate of the practice. Outside of the "Virgin Mary," are there any other instances where a woman who didn't have sex got pregnant (outside of the artificial options I mentioned before)? The story of the Virgin Mary may or may not be true. If it isn't, then there isn't even one instance where abstaining from sex resulted in pregnancy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation link

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. link2

The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows: The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples.
In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions. NAS defintion

In technical or scientific use, Theory, principle, and law represent established, evidence-based explanations accounting for currently known facts or phenomena or for historically verified experience: theory

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
But the statement "Evolution is a fact. That is settled science" is simply never true.

The National Academy of Science disagrees with you:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=28
"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong."

And yet the very first line of your quote says evolution is a theory.

The oxford dictionary, fortunately removed from the perview of the National Academies, says nothing about the national academies definition.

fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true:

Since a theory is never proven, (only supported) it ergo cannot be a fact.

Looking in the miriam webster definition of "theory" we find:
the·o·ry
noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\

: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

Since you may not define an object in terms of itself (tautological) it seems that indeed, a fact is not a theory.


A quick perusal finds no other cases where the NAS calls a theory a fact. For example the theory of gravity is, wait for it: a theory.

So it seems that in our zeal to proclaim evolution a fact that the national acadmies makes a special exception for the word fact. Thereby removing themselves from the debate.