GOVERNEMENT?

I am mainly directing the creationists.Has any one ever tryed to change the fact that evolution is thought in schools?I believe that is something has such a big contraversy, it shouldn't be thought as the only truth (as my Biology teacher did).

"Has any one ever tryed to change the fact that evolution is thought in schools?"
--That it is? No. How it is? Yes. I recently e-mailed my Anatomy & Physiology teacher regarding this topic. And welcome to the forum, you may like it here if you like scientific topics and EvC discussions.--BTW - Out of curiosity? Are you a youth?------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by hydrvs:

​

Has any one ever tryed to change the fact that evolution is thought in schools?

---

What's to stop someone having a sneaky evolutionary thought in the toilets, or behind the bike sheds?Stopping evolutionary thoughts is unenforceable, IMHO Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-25-2002]

Hi hydrus:In answer to your question, there have been numerous attempts to legislate evolution out of schools, an effort that was extraordinarily successful for nearly 40 years in 20-something states in the US following Scopes (can you say "backfired"?). In addition, there have been numerous recent legal attempts to either do the same (c.f. Kansas, for one), mandate "equal time", water down the curricula (c.f. Cobb County, Ga, for instance), or mandate the teaching of "Intelligent Design Creationism" (Ohio, for a recent example). Fortunately for science education in the US, most of the more egregious examples of legally mandating the teaching of tenets of a particular fundamentalist Protestant religious sect at public expense in science classes have been defeated in higher courts, including the US Supreme Court. However, that hasn't stopped the attempts - they just get more subtle.BTW: What controversy are you referring to: within science, or between science and fundamentalist religion?[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-26-2002]

Isn't evolution, sometimes, considered a faith? And isn't evolution also only a theory?And if I am not mistaken, Darwin said that the hole theory could be wrong; if foosils couldn't be found. So how could they teach us a theory that no one can explain, and that some explanations make it even less likely to happen?By the way, yes, I am pretty young.

hydrvsYou'll get 2 very different answers here. From me, a young-earth creationist, youll get complete agreement with yor statement. The basic genetics that allows variation of traits is proven, and can be considered evolution. Coulfd it generate bacteria to man evoltuion?That's faith and should only be taught as a hypothesis alongside creation. The world will not change, but Christians can peacefully make some inroads. Every evolutionist is doing the most damage to their own soul.

[QUOTE][B]And isn't evolution also only a theory?[/QUOTE][/B]There's nothing trivial about being a theory. To refer to something as "only a theory" is incorrect. A theory is how something works, a law is a prediction of behavior, usually based upon theory. For example, the Gas Laws are based upon Atomic Theory. Without the theory, the laws become invalid.Plus we teach all sorts of theories in science, because they are necessary to understand natural processes. We teach the Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Cell Theory, Number Theory, Probability Theory, and who knows how many others. Why not the Theory of Evolution? Trying to understand modern biology without it is like trying to learn geology without plate tectonics. [QUOTE][B]So how could they teach us a theory that no one can explain[/QUOTE][/B]Actually the mechanisms are understood, which mechanisms play larger roles than others under differing conditions is still a point of contention in evobio.

[QUOTE][B]I believe that is something has such a big contraversy[/QUOTE][/B]The only controversy is that some people don't like evolution because it conflicts with a literal interpretation of Genesis or the Qur'an so they make up scientific-sounding arguments against it. But if you actually read the scientific journals you will see that there is no controversy over whether or not evolution is occuring in the scientific community. There are some arguments as to which model is more correct.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hydrvs:
Isn't evolution, sometimes, considered a faith?

---

Only by people who either don't know what evolution is, or don't know what a faith is.

quote:

---

And isn't evolution also only a theory?

---

I think we've been through this. The atomic structure of matter is "only a theory". The model of the solar system with sun at the centre is "only a theory". Relativity is "only a theory". In science, theories are not something someone dreams up over a cappuccino late at night when an experiment goes wrong. It's something that explains reality very well and has survived a considerable testing process. Evolution is such a model.

quote:

---

And if I am not mistaken, Darwin said that the hole[sic]theory could be wrong; if foosils couldn't be found. So how could they teach us a theory that no one can explain, and that some explanations make it even less likely to happen?

---

Many of the fossils Darwin would have loved to see have been found. There are established fossil series between many taxa - reptile/mammal, ungulate/whale, cats, dogs and bears from their common ancestor, horses....... And what "explanations" have you in mind that make it "even less likely to happen"?

Teaching evolution in U.S. Public Schools violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Indeed, evolution states under no uncertain terms there is no literal God of the Bible who is responsible for creation as detailed in Genesis. There are those who might suggest that evolution says nothing about God, which is true. However, if there IS a God, He is not responsible for creating YOU. Thus, those who would embrace theistic evolution deceive themselves as such a belief has no basis in the so-called science of evolution as it is being taught today in the classroom.Taken to its logical conclusion (but thankfully evolution is far from self evident), if everyone were to believe in evolution, nay - REQUIRED to believe evolution in the public school system, there would be no Creationist Religions left. Although this is perhaps the ultimate goal, I can think of no greater egregious violation of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution in this context than that of teaching evolution in public schools.It could be argued that evolution, then, is the religion of Atheists, and, in fact, Atheism, as a religion, gives a faith based answer/belief support system for the ultimate question of life.Therefore we have to ask, What is a religion? Keep Webster's dictionary tucked away, because in the context of the 1st Amendment you'd have to seek out a definition from applicable controlling case law promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States.Unfortunately, the SCt. has not defined religion except to say in very vague terms that it is at least a closely held faith belief in the ultimate question of life. Sounds like the belief in abiogenesis/evolution to me; hence, the teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. The issue is now ripe.The gov't is not supposed to be the attack dog on privately held religious beliefs (thought police). At least not in America.One day, I am going to slap a big fat civil rights lawsuit on some unsuspecting professor of evolution for the aforementioned reasons. Just for fun. I'm going to love to watch the professor squirm on the stand as I demonstrate with their own words how evolution has ZERO foundation. There will be no out of court settlement. And I will win.Any volunteers?

Tell you what - why not pretend you've got the professor of evolution here now, and spill how you're going to do it.I was going to dismantle you point by point, but what's the point? It's been said a thousand times.Karl - theistic evolutionist, created by God whatever Ten-sai says.

Hi Karl,

quote:

---

Tell you what - why not pretend you've got the professor of evolution here now, and spill how you're going to do it.

---

Only the layperson couldn't understand the difference b/n an anonymous discussion board and a court of law. There are a plenty condition precedents, like rules of evidence, of which you as a layperson are greatly disadvantaged. It just wouldn't be fair to further demonstrate how incompetent you are to proceed.Suggestion: hire legal counsel and bring him on board.And have a good day!Peace,Ten-sai

Translation - you have nothing to bring to this debate but bluster.You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

Ten-sai,

quote:

---

Indeed, evolution states under no uncertain terms there is no literal God of the Bible who is responsible for creation as detailed in Genesis.

---

Relevant cite, please. I maintain that evolutionary theory does NOT state in "no uncertain terms" that there is no God. You will need to provide actual scientific references in support of your argument.If you can't do this, the rest of your argument is moot.Please respond to; http://EvC Forum: Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge -->EvC Forum: Christopher Bohar's Debate ChallengeThis will be the fifth time I've asked you for the specific rules of evidence you are referring to. What are you scared of?Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-27-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

​

quote:

---

That's faith and should only be taught as a hypothesis alongside creation.

---

​

Which Creation story, TB?

​

[QUOTE]The world will not change, but Christians can peacefully make some inroads. Every evolutionist is doing the most damage to their own soul.[/B]

---

And this religious indoctrination has no place in taxpayer-funded schools.