Posted on 08/02/2008 8:44:19 AM PDT by Soliton
don't remember when I first learned about the theory of evolution, but nowadays I find myself reading of it a great deal in the popular press and hearing it discussed in the media. As my daughter enters elementary school, I find myself anxious to discuss with her teachers what they will cover in science class and where in their curriculum they plan to teach evolution. OUR COUNTRY HAS LAWS THAT SEPARATE church and state. Public institutions like schools must be neutral on the subject of religion, as required by the Constitution's First Amendment. Our courts have mandated that creationism is not an appropriate addition to the science curriculum in public schools; yet supporters of intelligent design press to have antievolutionary discussions enter the science classroom. Creationists even advocate that, when leaching evolution, educators should add the disclaimer that it is "just a theory."
Let's consider why all of us as educated persons, scientists and nonseientists alike, should take note of what science is taught - and not taught - in our public schools. In common language, a theory is a guess of sorts. However, in scientific language, a theory is "a set of universal statements that explain some aspect of the natural world... formulated and tested on the basis of evidence, internal consistency, and their explanatory power."1 The theory of evolution meets all of these criteria.
(Excerpt) Read more at redorbit.com ...
This nation has been led down the wrong path by our courts for a while now. It is no business of the federal government what is taught in a local school. NO BUSINESS. The local agencies will take care of it. And if they don't, the involved state should take care of it. This nation is a union not fiefdom.
I like sincere people of faith. You have to realize that faith will be tested by facts. Keep the faith, but don’t try to deny the facts.
Everyone here knows this. The SCOTUS says it does however and it is the established law of the land
And you keep denying things OL never called you. I'm glad you voted for Reagan 4 times and heard him speak. If you are accused of that, I'll vouch for you. Heck, I even think it is admirable that you believe what you believe about evolution. I just don't think that judges have any business in the job of educating.
Fess up if the shoe fits. Then you can apologize. Otherwise stop ranting.
My posts stand exactly as written, if you don't like it get a moderator.
Else, stop your whining and the hot air.
You're wrong. They say, as I said, that the fourteenth amendment extends the prohibitions of the first amendment to the states. But even that extension doesn't prohibit teaching about religion, nor should it.
ML/NJ
“In common usage “theory” is akin to “guess.” This is not the case in science.”
I wouldn’t say “guess” just unproven. I may be Christian however I do not believe that ID or creationism belongs in the science classroom, there is less scientific proof of that than there is of the evolution theory. That would be just as ridiculous as making churches teach biology.
Everything you say may be true, but the Christian right got our President for the last eight years and I don’t believe that anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together would dare call him a small government conservative.
My posts stand exactly as written, if you don't like it get a moderator.
Else, stop your whining and the hot air.
You got caught equating all who study evolution with liberals. You made a fundamental error, yet you still won't apologize to a fellow poster for letting your mouth run away with your keyboard.
Your fundamental error seems to be thinking that theocons are the only conservatives. A lot of us were already conservatives while theocons were still democrats.
You just keep posting, as you just expose your true character. I'm going to take a break.
==I will NEVER understand why creationists want to teach their religion in public schools. They have churches. Is it because they can’t get their kids to go to church?
Refund the money we are forced to pay for your Darwinian indoctrination centers so we can apply it to our own schools, and you will get no argument from creationists.
Do you have to pay for Sunday School?
There’s a nice substantive response. Tell me, Soliton, should parents be able to get a refund on the money they pay for public education if they desire to send their children to private schools?
She has no desire to include her ugly ignorant religion, evolution, to the enforcement, huh?
That is why evolutionism cannot be taught in science classes; it is pure philosophy, unsupporeted by even miniscule shreds of evidence. All of it is extrapolation from deeply held desires and beliefs.
Thanks for the ping!
In other words, are you and coyoteman supporters of the bedrock conservative/libertarian principle of school choice? Or do you side with the liberals who insist that parents who want to send their children to private schools pay twice (that is, be forced to pay for public schools on top of private school tuition)? Just curious—GGG
You’ll have to ask Coyoteman what he thinks. I’m for school choice. My kids went to public school. They graduated. Should I still be paying?
I have read your posts with interest. Now, go easy on me as I am a slow reader, but will you tell me how an inorganic world gave rise to a sugar (ribose) or a nucleic acid, or the nucleoprotein.
I am curious regarding your point in post 108 where you say essentially the same thing Canis latrans hominis said to me....that being the complete dismissal of applying philosophy in asserting science and its advance. How does one affirm science without applying the philosophy of logic, or the Law of Causality, or Principles of Uniformity. Even skepticism, which you demonstrate with each post, is a philosophical assertion.
It seems an aloof proposition to tell us how all life developed (evolved) upon this planet without telling us how first life developed. First life evolved..."the RNA world hypothesis though. Natural selection would have played a role regardless." What is your point in making this statement. I see it as a dodge from really answering the quesiton. If you had said, "I do not know", that would have sufficed.
I wonder if mRNA had a ribosome as substrate upon which to act its magic? What was the transport method across lipoprotein membranes...OK..so how did "simple life" develope cell membranes and active transport mechanism, which we observe in those simple life forms. Otherwise you do not have a takeoff into the wild blue yonder to evolve.
OK. Let's try this. Without going through the litany (which I know you have read on these threads) I will ask a simple question of you. GIVEN.. Entropy, the findings of Edwin Hubble's red shift,the findings of Penzias and Wilson, COBE, WMAP, and the Law of CAusality, all...ALL...point to the beginning of the Universe - we can agree on that..right..There was a moment just before the BIG BANG where science tells us there was nothing....THEN...the universe exploded into being.
So my question is...Why is there anything at all rather than nothing? If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing? Notwithstanding your denial of philosophy being the underpinning of science, Francis Bacon, the father of modern science, "True knowledge is knowledge by causes." In other words the Law of CAusality is the fundamental principle of science, nothwithstanding your and coyotemans previous assertions. Even David Hume, skeptic extaorinaire, said, "If ever anyone tells you he doesn't believe in the Law of Causality, ask them what caused them to believe something could arise without a cause. So I ask you, what caused you to come to that conclusion?
The problem is the need, the absolute intellect numbing need, for certainty.
It’s ok to not know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.