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 ...
“Why We Must Teach Evolution in the Science Classroom”
So long as it is taught as the THEORY that it is, no problemo.
So what you are saying is that since genes exist, and all organisms posess genes, then all organisms were once a single species......
According to this absurd assertion, a science teacher is free to instruct the class that voting Republican causes cancer, and there would be no legal avenue to prevent it (as the court could not find that the assertion was not a scientific teaching, and thus would have no possible basis for concluding that it was in any way inappropriate to include in a science class).
It is always taught as a theory. A theory that accurately explains the origin of species.
Actually, you've got it backwards. I would assert that genetics (in and of itself empirical) is pressed beyond its intrinsic capability for explanation into the realm of "justifying" evolution through the a priori assumptions made by evolutionists who fit genetics into their already-existing circular reasoning.
“I will NEVER understand why creationists want to teach their religion in public schools.”
Why not, evolusionists do.
Once again showing that argumentum ad absurdam is the last refuge of a scoundrel!
Close enough! Although it is possible that life originated more that once.
Cute nonsense
Here, we find the root of your misunderstandings. You are basically treating "science" as a sort of cook-book of recipies that have no necessary logical connection to one another. That is, perhaps, sufficient for brewing up potions that will alleviate the common cold without causing the patient to grow a second head, but it will hardly do for the topic at hand.
So what you are saying is that the origin of species and the origin of life are not one in the same?????
Darwinism is about a new species forming from an existing one. It does not address the origins of life itself.
I respectfully disagree,a quantum wave function does NOT exist—except in “virtual reality”—another clever word physicists use to avoid all that “metaphysical baggage” they worried about when quantum theory research began.
If the sun explodes it hasn’t until those with the power to observe and conceptualize (or translate)the wave into physical reality percieve the explosion some eight minutes after the “virtual fact” of the explosion.
“Virtual reality” some of us can sense it without such an event.
In a way,high energy physics has done more to buttress ID than any prophet—though atheistic physicists deny these most important ramifications of their findings.
Just out of curiosity have you even looked at the fact that this is a philosophical argument at best.... and one that would fail in logical testing............
The decision also stated this...
We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. Indeed, the Court acknowledged in Stone that its decision forbidding the posting of the Ten Commandments did not mean that no use could ever be made of the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments played an exclusively religious role in the history of Western Civilization.
So how does a simple sticker advising an open mind become something prohibited? In any case the 1987 court who decided for that decision consisted of Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, and O'Connor. All true lights of conservatism. I'll go along with the two justices who disagreed with the decision, Rehnquist and Scalia.
Even if I agreed with the questionable premise that legislation can be invalidated under the Establishment Clause on the basis of its motivation alone, without regard to its effects, I would still find no justification for today's decision. The Louisiana legislators who passed the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" (Balanced Treatment Act), La. Rev. Stat. Ann. @@ 17:286.1-17:286.7 (West 1982), each of whom had sworn to support the Constitution (1) were well aware of the potential Establishment Clause problems and considered that aspect of the legislation with great care. After seven hearings and several months of study, resulting in substantial revision of the original proposal, they approved the Act overwhelmingly and specifically articulated the secular purpose they meant it to serve. Although the record contains abundant evidence of the sincerity of that purpose (the only issue pertinent to this case), the Court today holds, essentially on the basis of "its visceral knowledge regarding what must have motivated the legislators," 778 F.2d 225, 227 (CA5 1985) (Gee, J., dissenting) (emphasis added), that the members of the Louisiana Legislature knowingly violated their oaths and then lied about it. I dissent.
Part of the problem is that the definition of a theory differs between common usage and scientific usage.
In common usage "theory" is akin to "guess." This is not the case in science.
A scientific theory is the current best explanation for a set of facts. It has been studied, picked at, criticized, and generally worked over for some time. It has also successfully made predictions. For any given set of facts there generally is only one theory at a time. If new facts arise, it may be necessary to modify, or (rarely), discard a theory.
When you say that it is OK to teach evolution as a "theory" you are probably meaning to teach it as a "guess." But that is not a correct usage. The theory of evolution is currently unchallenged in scientific debate. The only challenges are coming from religion, and primarily from fundamentalist religions.
Given this, do you really want the theory of evolution to be taught as a guess, rather than the well-tested and well-established theory that it is? While doing this may make some fundamentalists happy, it would be scientifically incorrect.
I'll drop back by before going to bed this evening and see if any more competent evolutionists might have shown up by then.
It is a scientific discussion on my side because I require evidence to form an opinion. You will note that all of the evidence offered has come from me. Everyone else just spouts undefended opinions
And you have made my point exactly sir.... you say that evolution explains life itself without being able to explain life itself....
So teaching a lie is ok?
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.