Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in U.S. schools - Page 5

strandinthewind · #61 12-20-2004, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnchantedSLN

Aaaaah. Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Evolution does not propose that man "evolved from monkeys." That's a big oversimplification and misconception, and that's why it should be taught in schools

.

Darlin' I was a preachin' to the common folk and did not want to complicate my sermon with them $5.00 words

(for the unlearned - I am joking here

)

But, since you asked

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeyt...evolution.html

1. Did we evolve from monkeys?

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

dissention · #62 12-20-2004, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wondergirl9847

That's crap.

How so? Seriously, how can you possibly argue that creationism involves science?

strandinthewind · #63 12-20-2004, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

But you're argument is flawed, Christy. If there is/was a God, he/it would have had to come from something. How could he/it come from nothing to create everything? It defies logic, IMO.

that is where faith comes in. It is sort of like in math - which is the purest for of expression - when the rules have to be "broken" and special def. set forth for it to work. e.g. division of anything by zero

For the record and again, all I am saying is I have no problem with evolution being taught as the scientific method and perhaps a footnote saying the worlds' religions (all of them and not just the ones now) over time have come to accept it and some will never accept it. For a better explanation - take a comparative religions class - or something like that

I think to avoid the comparison altogether is an improper method of teaching

GateandGarden · #64 12-20-2004, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, there is really no way that some kid is not going to raise their hand and ask why evolution is contrary to creationism (intelligent design). I think it is wrong for a teacher to say that they cannot answer that question because the school is funded with public dollars

Well, wouldn't it be different for the teacher to just explain why some Christians disagree with evolution because the kid asked a question than to have creationism in his/her lesson plans? Just a thought.

Hillary

dissention · #65 12-20-2004, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

Indeed.
I would say that while i have seen scientist try to prove aspects of creation with science, it is crappy, crappy, science. They're really reaching. However, when i googled it, I got too much info to wade through at this moment. But there is a reason why this science isn't roundly accepted, i'll submit for now

(maybe i've found something to research during my vacation time from school...

) But you are right, there is "scientific evidence" propounded, that's for sure.

"Creationism science" is flawed to the Nth degree. It's more than them reaching, they're doing acrobatic back flips sideways in an attempt to give credence to anything they say.

strandinthewind · #66 12-20-2004, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

Well, wouldn't it be different for the teacher to just explain why some Christians disagree with evolution because the kid asked a question than to have creationism in his/her lesson plans? Just a thought.

Hillary

Well, don't you think there ought to be a lesson plan for it so there is some sort of uniform explanation out there? And - it is not just the Christians asking the questions.

GateandGarden · #67 12-20-2004, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

that is where faith comes in. It is sort of like in math - which is the purest for of expression - when the rules have to be "broken" and special def. set forth for it to work. e.g. division of anything by zero

For the record and again, all I am saying is I have no problem with evolution being taught as the scientific method and perhaps a footnote saying the worlds' religions (all of them and not just the ones now) over time have come to accept it and some will never accept it. For a better explanation - take a comparative religions class - or something like that

I think to avoid the comparison altogether is an improper method of teaching

I agree with all of this. Now I'm starting to wonder why there was a debate to begin with. What a letdown. You and diss could have been at it for pages.

Hillary

strandinthewind · #68 12-20-2004, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

"Creationism science" is flawed to the Nth degree. It's more than them reaching, they're doing acrobatic back flips sideways in an attempt to give credence to anything they say.

Alrighty Mr. Smarty Pants - start disproving the theories - we are all ears on how you are smater than some of the top scientists in the world

dissention · #69 12-20-2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

that is where faith comes in. It is sort of like in math - which is the purest for of expression - when the rules have to be "broken" and special def. set forth for it to work. e.g. division of anything by zero

Which is fine by me, but it also prevents those who have "faith" from partaking in discussions that involve logic, unfortunately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

For the record and again, all I am saying is I have no problem with evolution being taught as the scientific method and perhaps a footnote saying the worlds' religions (all of them and not just the ones now) over time have come to accept it and some will never accept it. For a better explanation - take a comparative religions class - or something like that

I think to avoid the comparison altogether is an improper method of teaching

Evolution should be taught as a scientific theory, nothing else. Creationism should not be taught at all because it involves religious beliefs and theories, which have no place in the classroom. That's all.

dissention · #70 12-20-2004, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Alrighty Mr. Smarty Pants - start disproving the theories - we are all ears on how you are smater than some of the top scientists in the world

I don't have to disprove their theories, Mr. Wise Ass, scientists that are equally reputable have refuted their theories. It's simply a matter of which ones you believe.

GateandGarden · #71 12-20-2004, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, don't you think there ought to be a lesson plan for it so there is some sort of uniform explanation out there? And - it is not just the Christians asking the questions.

I don't see why it should be an issue unless a child brings it up. Science doesn't need to justify itself to religion.

Hillary

dissention · #72 12-20-2004, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

I don't see why it should be an issue unless a child brings it up. Science doesn't need to justify itself to religion.

Hillary

There's always that famous oxymoron, Hillary:

A Christian Scientist.

strandinthewind · #73 12-20-2004, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Which is fine by me, but it also prevents those who have "faith" from partaking in discussions that involve logic, unfortunately.

Then all of nathematics is bogus according to this limited and IMO myopic standard

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Evolution should be taught as a scientific theory, nothing else. Creationism should be taught at all because it involves religious beliefs and theories, which have no place in the classroom. That's all.

Well, then when the questions come from the kids regarding why this conflicts with their religion, the teacher should just hand out pre printed cards that say - "sorry we cannot discuss that"

You "solution" has no practical application in the real world and you know it. Plus, as long as the public school teacher is not trying to establish one religion as THE religion, no law is being broken. I just for the life of me cannot see the harm in a teacher answering those questions and provoking thought in a student. But the far left and the far right go apoplectic at the mention of the thought

Thus, the battle rages on . . .

strandinthewind · #74 12-20-2004, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

I don't have to disprove their theories, Mr. Wise Ass, scientists that are equally reputable have refuted their theories. It's simply a matter of which ones you believe.

ahhhhhh - subjectivity in an objective conversation - it always comes down to that though