Both or neither.

So the idea that some groups of humans were less developed than others only arose after Darwin put forward his ideas? Do you think that?
The Christian churchs never supported slavery as the way god intended things? Do you believe that?As stated above the misuse of a concept or knowledge doesn't make the concept of the new knowledge factually incorrect. So this is irrelavant both to the validity of darwinism and the validity of other parts of the teachings of Christianity. It is not part of the scientific discussion.

You have some fundamental problems with you calculations.You have assumed that there is only one right answer. There are, in existing life, mulitple genetic answers that produce the same result. Do you know that this isn't true for the first self replicators?You have assumed that each letter chosen is a completley independent choice from the others. This isn't ture in chemistry. Cetainly results are more likelyt than others and the presence of a partial result can influence the likelyhood of other steps.It comes down to this: You can not calculate the probability of somehting that you know very little or nothing about.No one is doing research in abiogenesis based on purely random joining of atoms or base pairs. They recognize that his is not a reasonable approach. So to carry on with this is a waste of your time, no one disagrees with part of what you are saying. What is disagreed with is the idea that replicators had to arise as you are describing.The monkeys and type writers analogy is improved a little (but still no realy meaningful) if you take a "result" to be *any* grammatically correct English as output. This means that there are a collosal number of successes and you calculations of odds must consider that.

As a religious theory? Why would you put a religious "theory" in science class. If you want a comparative religion class that makes sense.If you want it as a scientific theory that is another matter. For it to be that it needs some work. So far it is nothing but untestable conjecture. There are a number of threads on the issues regarding it. As a matter of science history it can be useful, if time permits to show how old ideas (geocentrism etc.) are overturned by evidence. In this way the flood hypothosis was overturned a couple of centuries ago and a short discussion of that might be useful.The big problem is, of course, that there isn't nearly enough time in class to cover the real core of what needs to be covered.

---

Common sense isn't

Why not indeed. I think several of us here would be happy to have major religious ideas about the universe (turtles all the way down for example) and the formation of life presented in science class.The only correct approach would be to show how the evidence gathered over the last 2 or 3 centuries forced the complete renunciation of these ideas. That is the science based on the facts as we know them. However, there are two reasons why this would be difficult to implement. One is the time problem as I mentioned, it would be hard to keep it to "a couple of days" -- classes are usually only one hour at a time -- for the reason given next.The other is that a correct approach as I outline above would be construded by many to be a very full frontal attack on the beliefs of some individuals. It is hard enough for them to swollow the teaching of the current, consensus view. To specifically bring up and discuss the lies that are being promulgated in some churchs would be politically sensitive.

---

Common sense isn't

I believe that the court decisions do allow the teaching of various religious views but in the context of religious studies. I don't know what happens if the science class is used not to teach a religous based "theory" but to actually take it apart piece by piece and drop it in the garbage. This would be a whole new issue.It could be taken as "infringment" could it not?

---

Common sense isn't

So?This is probably a politically based attempt to cross the church-state separation line without encountering any court problems.Now that some other ideas can be taught what should be taught? There is a thread on this somewhere or I guess we can go into it here. The only thing that can be taught in a science class that doesn't infringe on the state support of religion would be the complete devestation of the young-earth, instant creation of species, global flood position. If you don't have a problem with that then fine.If you do have a problem with it then you will have to pick each item and show why you think it is valid in a science class.

---

Common sense isn't

Sorry about just noding and agreeing with you. But yes, it maybe time to take this on and try to bring the whole damm thing to a head.However, is there time and enough good science teachers to handle the task. There are a lot of practised liars out there with simple-minded convincing stories.How about a set of DVD's with the aruguments on them. Invite the creationists to recorded debates with rebuttals and counters on DVD.

---

Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-19-2004]

It is evil (a word that sound strong but looking at history might not be) because it undermines an important part of western free societies. It undermines a freedom which protects you (as a minority). Your religion is free from state interference, either by infringement or by pushing it.We are not talking about beliefs. The explanations which are supported in schools must be, by law in most free states, not based on a particular religious view.The consensus view of various branches of science are held by belivers and non-believers alike. These views do not require any particular religious view. This has been legally examined over and over and determined to be the case under a number of legal systems. It is religious faith that we are concerned about. Please describe (in another thread, some already exist) how basing ones understanding of what a most reasonable explanation for something is on lab tests is "faith". Faith, as has been noted a number of times doesn't require evidence. Lab tests are evidence that is required just when something is NOT based on faith.As for Biblical inerrancy there are threads discussing that too. It seems to require extrordinary twists to keep it that way.I don't think you have said what you believe Genesis does say. Some have an interpretation that seems to be fine and not proven wrong. Those who interpret it as saying that the earth was formed in 6 days only 6,000 years ago are interpreting it to be wrong.If you are one of the latter then there are threads where you may put forward your views. You will have them listened to. They will not be taken "on faith" but based on the evidence and logic you supply.

---

Common sense isn't

Then give some numbers. You actually think you can calculate a probability for either idea? Show input assumptions and detailed calculations.Here is a rough start:For one there is some independent, observable evidence, p > 0 for the other none, P ~ 0.

---

Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-22-2004]

There are two reasons:
1) "supernatural", by definition, is not natural! That is, there is no way to test it. Therefor it can not be a scientific theory. Therefor it doesn't belong in science class.2)The only reason why any of the supernatural "theories" are "brought up" is that it is part of a specific religion. There is no other reason for doing so. The dangers of mixing church and state have been recognized by a number of modern democracies. That the USA got this right very early is part of why it is a modern democracy and why a diverse group of peoples are able to live together. To break down this separate is what was being called "evil". And this sentence is exactly why it can't be taught. Each religion has just exactly the same claim to truth. And the state should not prefer one over another. All citizens are equal before the law. Their personal beliefs are theirs.Your belief is a minority belief. If the Christians of the world voted then your beliefs are not what would be taught. Do you want your beliefs subject not only to the scutiny of science but the state sponsored attack by Churchs too?

---

Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-30-2004]

There is a thread for dating, perhaps you would like to demonstrate the truth of your assertions there?http://EvC Forum: Carbon Dating DOESN'T work beyond 4500 yearswould be one thread you could use.

---

Common sense isn't