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 ...
Unfortunately the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
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?
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.
Um, no. The First Amendment, in its actual historical and philosophical context does nothing more than forbid the federal government (extended to the State governments bythe 14th amendment) from "establishing" any one religion as the "official" religion of the United States, in a legally established sense. It says nothing at all about making public institutions "neutral" with regards to expressions of religion or religious sentiment. Nothing at all. Our courts have mandated that creationism is not an appropriate addition to the science curriculum in public schools;
The courts have also mandated that black people in times past could be re-enslaved and returned to their masters. The courts have also mandated that local governments can come in and condemn your property if they'll make more tax money giving it to a developer. The courts have even mandated that the US Navy can't practice in American terrorial waters with its own sonar lest it disturb the migration patterns of some types of whales. Quite obviously, the courts are not to be looked to as being in any sense arbiters of what is either constitutional or even common-sensical.
My question for those who think that questioning evolution in schools and teaching creationism and/or ID since those would be representative of the teachings of certain religious groups, and hence "mixing church and state" is, why do you support the teaching of evolutionism, when it has many principles which it holds in common with Hindu cosmology? By your own logic, teaching evolutionism is basically mixing Hinduism in with the state, and therefore a violation of the religious neutrality which you profess to hold so dearly.
Yes, actually I have two degrees in science. Bachelors in chemistry, and Masters in chemistry, with an emphasis on synthetic organic. I've also worked in the pharmaceutical industry for eight years "doing science" since graduate school.
The dispute would be rendered moot by the general availability of vouchers.
You just make up stuff as you go.
Ping for later read
You don't need a voucher to send your kids to Sunday School.
I read somewhere that there is a very high (I remember something like 88%) dropout rate among some fundamentalist churches when kids leave home.
They are just trying to cast their net more widely.
Unfortunately, the S.C. is totally wrong! They know and if you look at the majority vote it's the liberals who voted against free speech. Notice this vote didn't take place til the selfish radical secularist took over.
In the late fifties and earlier sixty that where you really begin to see the decline of a standard society.
If you refuse to follow your own rules, precepts which have been proven to work then you're doomed to fail...America is doomed, and everyone knows it! In fact, I doubt we will last another 50 years as a free speech society.
No, it's just that you're too unintelligent and/or uninformed to deal with challenges to your philosophical worldview, and hence, refuse to allow them entrance into your self-contained fact-space.
No it does not. The genes prove common ancestry.
I believe you claimed that evolutionists were Hindus
Well, you're free to assert that all you want - I doubt that a simple thing like logic will be able to dissuade you from what is obviously a dearly held, faith-based principle.
MAJOR INTREP
And to say that the theory of evolution is based solely on good science is a complete pot of phooey.... All one has to do is go back to the mid-1900’s where prominent evolutionists prescribed to the idea that evolution of life was no longer a theory, but it was a fact... and then these great minds added that they did not intend to get bogged down in semantics and definitions regarding evolution.
Darwinism (the basis of evolutionary theory) is based on the premise of natural selection which basically boils down to the bare claims that some organisms leave more offspring than others....however, the real guts of evolution — which is how do you come to have horses, tigers, and such— is outside of this mathematical theory. Looking further into the weaknesses of Darwin's theory is in explaining the origin of species... natural selection (the basis of Darwinism) does not play any role until self-reproducing organisms ALREADY exist. As an explanation for the origin of self-reproducing organisms, it is a non-starter.... I can go on and on about the enormity of holes and poor science that goes along with the “theory of evolution” just as I can regarding global warming. To say that evolution is a fact, is well... wrong.
Let me give you a reading list:”Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing” by William A. Dembski; “Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution” by Michael J. Behe; “From Darwin to Hitler, Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany” by Richard Weikhart; “The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities” by William A. Dembski; “The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism” by Phillip E. Johnson.
You crack me up. You stand there shaking a rattle and doing your voodoo dance and then call dedicated scientist fools. I understand the science. Anyone that does will see that genetics has ended the darwin/creationism argument. We have quantifiable proof not only as to the fact of common origin, but also the exact amount of difference that has evolved. I rely on the science. You rely on superstition
???? You really did miss the point, didn't you?
I didn't say that evolutionists are Hindus. Let me break it down for you.
- Evolutionists (and secularists in general) say that including creationism and/or ID in public school science curricula would be "teaching religion in the public schools".
- This is based upon the fact that the notion that "God created life, the earth, the universe, etc." instead of it originating from "random materialistic forces" is a tenet held by pretty much all major, monotheistic religions today (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, various pseudo-cultist offshoots thereof, etc.) - Therefore, teaching anything that detracts from evolution is "teaching religion", and thereby promoting Judeo-Christian or Islamic religion, even though neither creationism nor ID are or must be intrinsically tied to any one religious group - it's a generally-held and ecumenical position. - Now, if this is true for the evolutionist, then we must note that evolutionism shares a lot of cosmological assumptions with Hinduism (extremely long earth age, evolutionary origin of species through gradual change, etc.) - Ergo, by the evolutionists own logic, if teaching creationism is tantamount to teaching Christian fundamentalism in the public schools, then teaching evolutionism means to be tantamount to teaching Hinduism. Get it?
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.