Monday, November 02, 2009

Illinois Teacher in Trouble Over Assignment

Guess this teacher made the nutty ones' heads spin just a little too fast. He gave his class an assignment to read an article that debunks Darwinian theory -- by discussing homosexuality in animals.

The Psychology Today blog has it...
Yesterday, Mr. Delong, a 10th and 12th grade Honors English teacher in Piasa, IL was suspended for assigning an article about homosexuality in the animal kingdom to his students. Should teachers ask their students to read about controversial topics? Should we allow parents veto power over the curriculum?

The local paper reporting this story quoted the teacher saying, "I have been suspended, but not without pay," Delong, of Carlinville, said Wednesday. "But I would rather not comment further until I speak with my union representative." High school teacher suspended after assigning an article on homosexuality in animals

The sophomore and senior high school students were assigned to read an article, which you can check out here: The effeminate sheep and other problems with Darwinian sexual selection.

Psychology Today continues:
Mr. Delong is reportedly a married, heterosexual teacher who identifies as an ally of the GLBTQ community and clearly has the respect and admiration of his students. This is just one of many examples of how teachers are taught to be conservative and non-controversial and why GLBTQ youth don't feel safe in schools. If a school district considers teaching with a scientific article written by a professor at Stanford University and published in a popular science magazine as controversial and worthy of suspension - then how can we convince other educators to stand up and teach critically? In order to help students learn to become critical thinkers and active citizens in a participatory democracy, it is essential to have teachers encourage students to question normative thinking and learn to critically evaluate information for themselves -- particulary with respect to sex, gender, and sexuality.

It is a thought-provoking article. A transgender biologist began to wonder why there are so many gay and lesbian people. Evolution works through reproduction of the fittest members of a population, and homosexual organisms won't reproduce at all, yet homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 species.

From the paper:
My discipline teaches that homosexuality is some sort of anomaly. But if the purpose of sexual contact is just reproduction, as Darwin believed, then why do all these gay people exist? A lot of biologists assume that they are somehow defective, that some developmental error or environmental influence has misdirected their sexual orientation. If so, gay and lesbian people are a mistake that should have been corrected a long time ago. But this hasn’t happened. That’s when I had my epiphany. When scientific theory says something’s wrong with so many people, perhaps the theory is wrong, not the people.” The effeminate sheep and other problems with Darwinian sexual selection.

Imagine da noive of a teacher asking sixteen and eighteen year old children to read this!

According to the local paper:
Pat Milner, the school district's secretary, said a special meeting of the Southwestern School Board has been set for 6 p.m. Monday, Nov. 2, at the district's office in Piasa for the purpose of personnel/employee discipline. Southwestern teacher starts controversy

It will be interesting to see if they fire this teacher, or give him an award.

34 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

OMG...brace yourselves - here it comes - the tidal wave of breast beating, hair-tearing, screeching from the CRW folks and their loony schoizd supporters! More wild talk about the danger women face when they use public restroom facilities, the absolute evils of same-gender marriage, even the sin of talking about sex in the schools and in the public arena.
What a life!!
Citizen

November 02, 2009 10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sounds like Citizen is the breast-beating, screeching loony

but that's just me

I would tend to side with the teacher here and would do so more emphatically if I thought it was consistent in exposing the kids to all the problems with Darwinian theory

sounds to me, however, like he chose this article as a back door to support the gay agenda

but that's just me

November 02, 2009 11:03 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, the gay agenda is to have equal rights, to not be fired from your job for something other than your ability to do it, the right not to be evicted from your home merely for who you are. You talk about the gay agenda like its a bad thing - it most certainly isn't. The gay agenda is something all moral and decent people support and seek to advance.

November 02, 2009 11:30 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Yeah, that's just you.

Joan is a brilliant, Nobel-Prize-qualified biologist who is recognized as one of the leading population biologists in the country.

The delicious irony is that she is challenging the traditional Darwinian view on sexual selection and the religious extremists are opposing her. They finally find a qualified critic of a Darwinian theory and they simply cannot deal with it.

November 02, 2009 11:33 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 02, 2009 12:33 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 02, 2009 12:38 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“if I thought it was consistent in exposing the kids to all the problems with Darwinian theory

sounds to me, however, like he chose this article as a back door to support the gay agenda”


Even if that 'back door' was part of the evil gay agenda, it’s still an eternal chink in the even more evil Darwinian legacy of one species vying for control over another (resulting in human beings who can fathom that)...

Own it. The Gay agenda helps prove your Adam and Eve case.

November 02, 2009 12:40 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

There are a variety of theories on how gayness is selected for. There is some evidence that women who have gay sons tend to have more children in general, another theory says that gayness is selected for in men for the same reason men have nipples - women require nipples and an attraction to men and these are transmitted to men as a vestige of female development. All fetuses start out from a female template in the womb and those with xy chromosones are later masculined. Some theorize that this masculinization is incomplete and thus some male babies are born gay and some female fetuses get a bath of testosterone in utero and have a masculinized brain.

I think however, the most plausible explanation for how male gayness is selected for is the following:

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.html

The theory is that there are several alleles of a gene that determine a males position along a hyper-masculine/feminine continuum.
Inheritance of several such alleles produces gayness. Single alleles make for greater sensitivity, empathy, tendermindedness, and kindness. These traits make heterosexual carriers of the genes better fathers and more attractive mates and thus enhance reproductive success.

The typical male without gayness related genes may be too masculine for optimal reproductive success Ones who inherit none of these alleles are hyper-masculine and lacking in the sensitivity, kindness, empathy, and other traits that make them most attractive to females(such males might be very ruthless, selfish, cruel etc.)

As males at either end of the continuum have a negative impact on reproductive success nature tends to try and find an equilibrium. Males that are on either end of the spectrum continue to be selected for as well because variability is also key to reproductive success - humans were evolved to fit various niches and a variety of personality types do this best. Thus there over the millenium there continues to be a vascilation between femininity and hypermasculinity in males as traits are selected for that both balance reproductive success and the need to have a variety of personality types to fit in a variety of niches.

November 02, 2009 12:41 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I would postulate that men can be masculine without being reckless, selfish or cruel, insensitive or lacking empathy, or poor fathers. It would take a great deal more evidence than actually exists to convince me that these traits exist on a masculine/feminine continuum.

November 02, 2009 1:18 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Robert said " would postulate that men can be masculine without being reckless, selfish or cruel, insensitive or lacking empathy, or poor fathers.".

I agree with you Robert, and I don't think the article was trying to make that point. What it was suggesting is that when masculinity is taken to the extreme these are the results.

November 02, 2009 1:28 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Actually, there is a theory, a well-respected one by researcher Simon Baron-Cohen, that "maculinity taken to an extreme" manifests as autism.

November 02, 2009 1:35 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Well, I don't know much about autism, but it strikes me more as a dishorder than a personality trait.

November 02, 2009 1:36 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 02, 2009 1:40 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Robert also said "It would take a great deal more evidence than actually exists to convince me that these traits exist on a masculine/feminine continuum.".

Robert, I seriously doubt either of us are even remotely aware of all the evidence that actually exists.

November 02, 2009 1:41 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Robert, if you don't think these traits exist along a masculine/feminine continuum, how do you explain the fact that 95% of prison inmates are male and only 5% are female?

November 02, 2009 1:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Local news item from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110202120.html

A Georgetown University student was allegedly called anti-gay slurs and attacked while walking near campus early Sunday morning, the second such assault reported near campus in the past week, according to university officials.

The male student was walking near 36th and N streets NW about 1:30 a.m. when a man wearing a leather jacket, with his face painted red and white, repeatedly called the student an anti-gay slur. The man then physically assaulted the student and fled the scene, according to a campus police report. The student was injured in the attack and taken to Georgetown University Hospital for treatment.

A group of Georgetown students have organized a "Vigil Against Assault" that will begin at 8:30 p.m. Monday in the Red Square on campus. The vigil will last about 30 minutes and allow "members of the campus community to stand in solidarity with victims of the recent hate crimes," according to a Facebook group created for the event.

On Friday, a group of about 50 Georgetown students rallied on campus to show solidarity for another victim of an allegedly anti-gay assault. On Tuesday, a female student was walking on Canal Road near the entrance to Georgetown's campus when she was confronted by two white men in their late 20s who shouted anti-gay insults at her. The student was wearing a gay rights T-shirt at the time, according to campus police. The assailants grabbed her book bag, pushed her to the ground and struck her with the bag before leaving the scene. The student was injured but did not require medical attention.

November 02, 2009 5:11 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Just to throw my two cents in here, I’m a heterosexual female with a male's body, and I have the past-life memories to prove it.

From my experience, gay men/women are literally born in the "wrong" body.

Most people don’t consider life before birth, let alone gender before birth.

Reincarnation pretty much solves the whole LGBT thing.

Not to proselytize or anything

(and by all means, open a window and throw out any remnants of redemption that you thought I may have had (I'm talking to you Theresa and Orin))

But, a solution---of any kind---would leave ego-addicts without an enemy.

The effort put into fighting the “Gay Agenda” could solve world hunger.

That’s 35,000 eternal souls a day for you pro-lifers.

November 02, 2009 5:18 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

At my school we had an exhibit with GLBT members who have impacted history. I was expecting some slack and ready to stand up against it to make my students continue to feel safe in my school. Nada, nothing, zilch. In fact, we had a lot of support from parents and the community.

I think the teacher in question in this post should receive a prize.

Our children are being taught to memorize worthless information that they'll never need to know again once they have taken the SAT Exam.

While a teacher may not agree with a particular view a student may hold, we do smile upon thoughtful opinions.

November 02, 2009 5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the gay agenda is to have equal rights, to not be fired from your job for something other than your ability to do it, the right not to be evicted from your home merely for who you are."

this is a lie

"You talk about the gay agenda like its a bad thing"

this is true

"- it most certainly isn't. The gay agenda is something all moral and decent people support and seek to advance."

several lies here

"Yeah, that's just you.

Joan is a brilliant, Nobel-Prize-qualified biologist who is recognized as one of the leading population biologists in the country.

The delicious irony is that she is challenging the traditional Darwinian view on sexual selection and the religious extremists are opposing her. They finally find a qualified critic of a Darwinian theory and they simply cannot deal with it."

Well, I'm a religious extremist and I'm not opposing her.

The delicious irony here is that I made this some point about homosexuality contradiciting natural selection here a couple of years ago during one of our many evolution "discussions" and I'm not even "one of the leading population biologists in the country". You guys went ballistic, as usual.

Funny how Dana appears to be on a first-name basis with all the country's scientists.

"This post has been removed by the author.

Comment deleted

This post has been removed by the author"

these are all true

priya the serial deleta is at it again

"Even if that 'back door' was part of the evil gay agenda, it’s still an eternal chink in the even more evil Darwinian legacy of one species vying for control over another"

actually, the recurrence of homosexuality despite any obvious adaptive advantage is evidence it is environmental rather than innate

"Just to throw my two cents in here, I’m a heterosexual female with a male's body, and I have the past-life memories to prove it."

thanks, improv

we needed that

November 03, 2009 12:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

kids, I've been up and down the Shenandoah Valley today and let me tell you the pro-family steamroller is so big here, I just hope the mountains aren't flattened

tomorrow, the people of Virginia, NY and NJ will demonstrate their contempt for the gay agenda when the majority will vote against gay agenda candidates

It seems the southern voice is current again. I've been listening to the title tune from Tim McGraw's new album while driving from place to place:

"Hank Williams sang it
Number 3 drove it
Chuck Berry twanged it
Will Faulkner wrote it
Aretha Franklin sold it
Dolly Parton graced it
Rosa Parks rode it
Scarlett O chased it
Hank Aaron smacked it
Michael Jordan dunked it
Pocahantas tracked it
Jack Daniels drunk it
Tom Petty rocked it
Dr. King paved it
Bear Bryant won it
Billy Graham saved it

Smooth as the hickory wind
That blows from Memphis
Down to Appalachicola
It's hi ya'll did ya eat well
Come on in child
I'm sure glad to know ya

Don't let this old rugged cross

And this Allman Brothers t-shirt throw ya

We're just boys making noise

We're the southern voice"

it's a little different from the Hollywood voice:

"Note to hotel managers: unless you want it to be altered forever, remove that Bible from Sir Ian McKellen's bedside drawer before he shows up.

In a Q&A with Details magazine, the openly gay 'Lord of the Rings' star admits to a habit of tearing out the Bible passage that condemns homosexuality -- Leviticus 18:22 -- every time he finds one in his hotel room.

The passage: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

"I'm not proudly defacing the book," he asserts, "but it's a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible.""

this is the gay agenda America is sick of

November 03, 2009 12:47 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Dana noted:

“The delicious irony is that she is challenging the traditional Darwinian view on sexual selection and the religious extremists are opposing her. They finally find a qualified critic of a Darwinian theory and they simply cannot deal with it.”

And Joan Roughgarden:

“When scientific theory says something’s wrong with so many people, perhaps the theory is wrong, not the people.”

I don’t believe Joan’s findings indicate that Darwin was wrong any more than Einstein’s findings indicate that Newton was “wrong.” Newtown’s equations resolve the orbits of 7 of the 8 planets to the level of accuracy available to cosmologists for centuries. It was only Mercury’s orbit that didn’t quite agree, which caused Kepler decades of consternation trying to figure out why his numbers were off a few places after the decimal. Einstein’s theory, and the Lorentz transformation (which involves factors of 1/squareroot(1-v^2/c^2) where “c” is the speed of light, and “v” is the velocity of the object ) refined Newton’s equations and when applied to Mercury’s orbit, came right into alignment with Kepler’s measurements.

It seems many Darwinist narrowly view the action of sexual selection based only on the progeny of individuals. Few people look at the operations of genetics over the species as a whole. Richard Sole and Brian Goodwin who wrote “Signs of Life: How Complexity Pervades Biology” are exceptions. They also take exception with how Darwin’s theory has been interpreted and used over the last century and a half.

http://www.amazon.com/Signs-Life-Complexity-Pervades-Biology/dp/0465019285/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257261229&sr=1-1

One of the interesting studies in this book is of the trait of aggression. If we assume for a moment that it is an inherited trait, and model organisms with varying degrees of aggression, we can study its “fitness” in evolution. What they found was quite interesting. In a species with very low levels of aggression, the population would die of relatively quickly as other, more aggressive colonies nearby took over. If the species had too high a level of aggression, it spent too much time fight amongst itself, and eventually ended up killing itself off, as only the most aggressive had a chance to survive – but this led to even more aggression.

November 03, 2009 10:48 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

The “Goldilocks” level of aggression was achieved when there was a spread throughout the population of different aggression levels, with some (but not too many) very aggressive individuals. These invariably ended up being the first to respond to outside aggression and protected the rest of the community. Sometimes these aggressors attacked the community itself, but not in such large numbers at to undermine population viability.


I submit that Joan’s findings are a further refinement of Darwin’s theories, not repudiation. Childless Aunts and Uncles (for example, because they are gay or trans) provide extra resource and a “backup plan” if parents become injured or die. In a species with strong social bonds that take nearly two decades to reach maturity, and subject to countless bacteria, viruses, cancers and accidents, having extra hands around to help with childrearing only make sense from an adaptive standpoint.

In my own case, I am sending my nephew to a Catholic High School, which his parents are not able to afford. I also provide help for my other nieces and nephews (some of whom are Mormon,) and first cousins once removed. My genes won’t propagate into the species, which I’m sure is a great relief to some (who shall remain anonymous), but I’m helping support healthy and well educated children in other parts of my family tree. Something I would unlikely be able to afford if I had children myself. Of course, if (God forbid) something happened to one of my siblings, I’d be more than happy to step in and help carry the load.

In our larger society we have the opportunity to take advantage of the LGBT population in a very productive way. The last estimate I saw showed roughly 4.5% of the population is gay. This works out to be about 13.5 million people, with a potential for 6.75 million couples out of that. Last year there were approximately 1.2 million abortions. (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html )

It seems to me that if even only one quarter of the gay and lesbian couples who were allowed to marry wanted children, there would still be a shortage of children available for them to adopt.

If the abortion movement were using their brains, they’d see that the key to stopping abortions would be having women carry their children to term and helping them get them adopted by caring LGBT folks who would otherwise be childless. First we need to get all those gay people married off though. Although single parents have often done a wonderful job raising kids, having two around is a huge help.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

November 03, 2009 10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, one way to reconcile the persitence of homosexuality with natural selection is the fact that, prior to recent times, most homosexuals were closeted and many got married so the trait could have been passed (assuming it's genetic, which I doubt)

even now, most homosexuals are really bisexuals

November 03, 2009 10:55 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon noted:
“actually, one way to reconcile the persistence (sic) of homosexuality with natural selection is the fact that, prior to recent times, most homosexuals were closeted and many got married so the trait could have been passed (assuming it's genetic, which I doubt)”

That is indeed a possibility Anon. This means that there is the possibility of eliminating it (or greatly reducing it) from the population by allowing gay people to marry whom they please rather than forcing them into heterosexual relationships. It would probably take several generations to eradicate all of the potential factors that contribute, but it certainly makes a good argument for allowing gay marriage.

“even now, most homosexuals are really bisexuals”

I’ve only met two people who claimed to be bisexual, but I know a lot of gays. Of course I haven’t done a scientific study of the matter – I’m just not that interested in what other people are doing with their genitals. Just curious how you might know this.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

November 03, 2009 11:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I’ve only met two people who claimed to be bisexual, but I know a lot of gays. Of course I haven’t done a scientific study of the matter – I’m just not that interested in what other people are doing with their genitals. Just curious how you might know this."

I know because all gays used to say that before the head gays in the gay kingdom ordered all gays to change to a line that better fits the agenda. I've been around long enough to remember that.

All those people that told they were gay are actually bi.

Most of them have had carnal knowledge of females except for the ones who haven't had the opportunity because of lack of personal appeal.

They have no concept of sexual morality, btw.

November 03, 2009 11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I’m just not that interested in what other people are doing with their genitals."

I'm not either but you have to figure some things out because these lunatics are trying to get us to rearrange our society to accomodate them.

It's starting to roll back though.

Bob McDonnell is blazing a path for pro-family groups to retake the country.

Voters are streaming to polling places down here in Virginia today.

Funny thing is, the local bumpkin paper has Creigh Deeds on the cover calling on his "base" to show up at the polls today.

HAHAHAHAHA!

November 03, 2009 11:47 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "the gay agenda is to have equal rights, to not be fired from your job for something other than your ability to do it, the right not to be evicted from your home merely for who you are."

Bad anonymous said "this is a lie".

After your shamefully repetitively dishonest performance on this thread:


http://www.teachthefacts.org/2009/10/survey-shows-discrimination-against.html#comments

You're not in any position to be calling anyone a liar. All the efforts of gay activists have been towards gaining equal rights, the right not to be fired or evicted for who you are, the right to equal marriage, etc. Actions speak louder than words and the actions of those fighting for equal rights for gays demonstrate the truth of what I've said.

I said "You talk about the gay agenda like its a bad thing"

Bad anonymous said "this is true".

Equal rights and justice are never a bad thing.

I said "- it most certainly isn't. The gay agenda is something all moral and decent people support and seek to advance."

Bad anonymous said "several lies here".

Moral and decent people support justice and equality - you don't, Mr. "there is no discrimination against trans people", "I never said there is no discrimination against trans people", "there is some discrimination against trans people", "there is no discrimination against trans people", I never said there was no discrimination against trans people".

November 03, 2009 2:39 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said “even now, most homosexuals are really bisexuals”.

As you frequently do, you made this up to suit your anti-gay agenda - you have nothing to back up this claim.

Personally the gays I've known were disgusted by the thought of sex with women. Michael Baily did a study with plethysmograph testing which he claimed demonstrated there was no such thing as a bisexual. He did ignore some bisexuals who demonstrated arousal to both sexes in his study, but the men who said they were gay showed no arousal to women. Once again, the facts prove you to be a liar.

November 03, 2009 2:42 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Cynthia,

Interestingly it is has been a fundament of Darwinina theory for a very long time that natural selection only works on individuals; that species selection is very problematic. I know that's been changing, and clearly it will not replace or repudiate the modern synthesis, but expand it.

November 03, 2009 3:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"prior to recent times, most homosexuals were closeted and many got married so the trait could have been passed (assuming it's genetic, which I doubt)"

Maybe you can say that about humans, but what about 15,000 other species that exhibit same sex behavior? I'm not aware of gay animals closeting themselves by hiding out in heterosexual arrangements.

http://www.queerty.com/a-queerty-menagerie-of-gay-animals-20090413/

November 03, 2009 3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

animals hump trees too

I wouldn't make too much of it

November 03, 2009 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mmmmmm, "Anonymous" - "animals hump trees too"

I bet you really, really enjoy watching that, don't you? You are OBSESSED with sex. Why not attend to your own problems for once in your life?

November 03, 2009 4:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you mean like TTF does?

November 03, 2009 9:16 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

"thanks, improv

we needed that"


You're welcome, have "fun" in your next life.

November 04, 2009 5:39 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home