It's a Sad Day For the Future Of American Children.

But in an advanced course the difficulties are taught are they not? The levels where the details remaind to be thrashed out are a bit much for a high school student to get into.My kids school is teaching some evolutionary theory at both the grad 9 and 11 level. They are learning something about older ideas (lamarke for example) and there is even a mention of the idea of a "creator".They don't spend nearly enough time on it to get into the subtleties and details. If they don't spend that time then they can't start to discuss any interesting parts.Again, what would someone suggest be taught? The contents of something like AIG? A joke! If you disagree pick pieces and be prepared to defend them.If a general discussion of "other theories" is desired please list those theories and why each should be included. How many are there? I think there are probably some 10's of "faith based" (evidence-less) "theories" and one evidence based one. Could you list these in order of priority giving the amount of classroom time that should alloted, the major points that each should have made about it and *why* this one and those points should be made.

Brad, I do NOT refuse. I give up. I think there is a difference. I can NOT understand what you are saying. Maybe my fault, maybe yours, maybe some of both. I do know that I'm not the only one who has a tough time with your posts so there is at least some chance that the fault lies there.

Neither of the *theories* are "proven". The facts behind evolution which the theory explains are, as facts, "proven". However the big difference is any form of creation science that I have seen put forward has been *disproven*. It is wrong.Perhaps you have a form of "creation science" that you can put forward that has not been shown to be wrong. I would be interested in seeing it.It will have to include an old earth and no flood of course. Those are two of the tenants of some forms of creationism that have been falsified.A number of times on this thread (and elsewhere) it has been asked that what would be taught be spelled out. This would be an alternative *scientific* theory. We seem to be still waiting for that.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-17-2003]

Actually, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what would be taught when any time is given? It seems the other way we might arrive at zero classroom time is that is the amount of content that is available.

That's it???Funny, my kids don't have anything about the Miller/Urey experiment in their courses. Since it is about the origin of life and not evolution and it is a tiny detail I'm not surprised it isn't there.The fossil record is an embarassment is it? LOL. Well we both agree it should be studied then. Especially the series which show transitions between kinds. Perhaps you would like to open a thread showing how it supports creation.Of course, Darwin would have been concerned about the fossil record there was very little then. Now there is a huge amount and what we have found supports what he said.As for your archeopteryx comment. The problem of putting it into a current taxon is exactly why it shows the transitions. We don't happen to have a family or order called birdtile or repird (bird-reptile) so we try to cram it into one or the other. It happens to have characteristics that belong to both taxa. There is a thread here that discusses that. If you want to make such a statement then defend it there.Fine, you covered some smaller scale evolution.What I get from your post is that you have NO "theory of creation" you have a few poor comments about the ToE. I would have no problem with all of those areas being dicussed in a science classroom. You, of course, have no problem adding a few more instructional-weeks to the current time spent on evolution.

I am still waiting for the "other theory" that some individuals are demanding time (equal or not) for. If you want *more* time for evolutionary theory in classrooms, which seems to be what you are calling for, well, you sure won't have any arguement from me.

Oh, theman, so you agree with more teaching of evolution too? Good!

Keith, you still seem to want MORE teaching of evolutionary theory and the evidence for it.I was expecting a scientific theory that is different from ToE with an equivalent explanation for what we do know and some different predictions that could be tested to show that it is a *better* scientific explanation for the facts before us.On an AdminNosy note:
I think that bringing all the various subtopics into this one thread will confuse things terribly. There are threads on abiogenesis, transitional fossils etc. It would help if those threads were used to thrash out the details of your objections.