I believe it has never advanced past a hypothetical construct.
She doesn’t really say why eveolution “must” be teached. Maybe the headline editor at Red Orbit got carried away.
Why? Because the Temple of Darwin relies on force and tolerates zero dissent.
Evolutionism fails to meet the first criterium, and the latter two criteria are the product of ignorance about the validity of philosophical presuppositions.
Evolution, self-admittedly, deals with suppositions which cannot be reproduced experimentally, since the events in question (i.e. macroevolution) are not currently being observed, and are presumed to have occurred sometimes hundreds of millions of years in the past. Evolutionists resort to "experimentation" which is circular in reasoning, seeking to reproduce what they "think" happened, by engineering experimentation around the foregone conclusion of the results they seek to validate. That is scientifically invalid, even if it is politically acceptable to evolutionists. There is therefore no actual "basis on evidence" for evolution. Just a lot of suppositions, wild guesses, ridiculous arguments from homology, and extrapolation from the evidence of horizontal change to the supposition of vertical change.
Even leaving aside the questionable assumption that evolutionism is self-cohesive, "internal consistency" is not necessarily a hallmark that something is true. There are many, many philosophies which are "internally consistent" that none of us here would accept as true, merely because they are internally consistent.
"Explanatory power" is also not an evidence for truth of a proposition. Ptolemy's geocentric model had "explanatory power", but was obviously not true. The theories about aether and phlogiston had explanatory power, but were not true. "Explanatory power" indicates a that one has produced a theory only, not experimental verification or "science".
Well,the theory DOES explain the chicken or the egg riddle.
Forget for the moment that eggs were around long before the first chicken—the theory of E states that whatever hen laid the first egg containing the first chicken was not a chicken—close to but still not EXACTLY a chicken.
Growing up the chicken or the egg paradox drove me crazy—I was just happy “something” answered it.
My personal belief is,of course,that all physical laws in the Universe,both discovered and yet to be discovered,were put in place by intelligent design.
To believe otherwise is to be inconsistant with the evolution of the human brain—which has finally advanced to a stage where healthy specimens can sense things beyond the physical.
This is such B.S. The first admendment requires no such neutrality! The word "Establish" makes it very clear what the law intends. The reason we are in such moral decay and have a selfish attitude in today's society is because we've allow IDIOTS like this to define the law on religious free speech.! It's the totally oppsite from the standard the securalists have set. In public discourse and especially public schools you should be debating and discussing religion as a topic every day!
Again, what the gov't can not do as required by law is "establish" a religion. Discussing religion and praying do NOT establish it, but rather positively foward the first admendment precept!
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.
MAJOR INTREP
“Why We Must Teach Evolution in the Science Classroom”
So long as it is taught as the THEORY that it is, no problemo.
So teaching a lie is ok?
Hatred for all things ‘Biblical’ defines the modern Democrat party and their hardcore evolutionist allies.
Both of these groups hate American historical values, and both of these groups worship the Big Government public school monopoly.
The hardcore evolutionist on FR who claim to be small government libertarians are the worst liars of all.
The FR hardcore evolutionists worship Big Government at its very worst (public school monopoly) but claim libertarianism as a convenient, dishonest excuse for the extreme moral liberalism they spew on this conservative forum.
They are all liars of the worst kind.
Actually the first amendment says nothing about public schools being neutral on the subject of religion. The public schools are creatures of the states and the first amendment applies only to Congress. The fourteenth amendment had been ruled, mistakenly I believe, to say that the states cannot "establish a religion not prohibit the free exercise thereof," in extending the first amendment to the states. But this hardly means that the public schools cannot teach about religion and religious topics.
It is extremely important that children should be taught what large groups of people believe. Lots of people believe that Mary is the mother of G-d; that G-d created the heavens and the earth; and/or that infidels should be beheaded. Large groups of adults act upon these beliefs and ignorance of them leads to overall ignorance, unfortunately.
ML/NJ
She has no desire to include her ugly ignorant religion, evolution, to the enforcement, huh?
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.
I wonder if this gal was born yesterday. With regard to government schools evolution has been a hot bed of community conflict since before the 1930s. (Scopes Trial). Funny, but we never hear about these curriculum cat fights in private schools.
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.
She will quickly find that most government teachers are not bright enough or sufficiently educated to understand or grasp anything but the broadest outline of evolution. Government teachers have the lowest SATs and GREs on campus. Few teachers have taken anything more than Algebra for arts majors or anything other than the most minimal science for arts majors.
OUR COUNTRY HAS LAWS THAT SEPARATE church and state.
WRONG! WHAT A FOOL!
I am wondering about this gal's education. I bet she considers herself educated. Separation of church and state can not be found in our nation's founding documents.
There is a prohibition against government **establishment** of religion.
Our First Amendment also states that we have a right to freely express our religious belief. That is generally ignored by the evolutionists and liberal/Marxists who support compulsory, police threat, godless, government indoctrination.
Compulsory, police enforced, government schools FORBID free expression of religion for nearly all of the compulsory, police threat day! Compulsory, police threat, government schools also FORBID free association, free speech, and free press. Government schools also subject children to a godless religious philosophy nearly every minute of every compulsory, police threat day!
Public institutions like schools must be neutral on the subject of religion, as required by the Constitution's First Amendment.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for education to be religious neutral. It is axiomatic. ( Gee! I bet this gal thinks she is educated.)
The government **must** choose between teaching from a godless worldview or a God-centered one. NEITHER is religiously neutral in content or consequences!
Our courts have mandated that creationism is not an appropriate addition to the science curriculum in public schools;
Courts are not always right. And....As far as I know evolution in the government schools has never been considered by the Supreme Court. Also....When it comes to compulsory, police enforced, government schools, the courts have always rule narrowly and have never ( to my knowledge) considered that education can never be religiously neutral.
yet supporters of intelligent design press to have antievolutionary discussions enter the science classroom.
I bet if the anti evolutionists were given a complete and total lifetime refund for the money paid for government schools they would stop pressing. Also,...If the money now allocated to the atheistic government schools were directed to their children in the form of tax credits and vouchers they would stop pressing.
Also,...This stupid, ill-educated gal probably doesn't realize that there are HUNDREDS of issues that community groups war over in the government schools. Why? Because the government must make a binary decision on hundreds of religious non-neutral issues. No matter what the police threat government schools decide one side's religious worldview will win and the other will lose.
Mabybe those with God-centered worldviews press for their side because they are under police threat to pay for the godless government schools and would like their worldview given time and recognition.
Creationists even advocate that, when leaching evolution, educators should add the disclaimer that it is "just a theory."
Well...Gee! Even hard core evolutionists ( when cornered) admit that evolution still fits the strict definition of "theory". It isn't an experiment that can be duplicated using the scientific method.
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.
What needs to be considered here is the fact that as long as we have compulsory, police threat, godless government schools, there will be continual curriculum and policy wars. There can be no compromise because to compromise is to lie to one's conscience!
What needs to be considered is that government schools are a freedom of conscience ABOMINATION!!!
Also?....I bet she would consider those of us who want our children educated in an environment with a God-centered worldview, to be uneducated.I am willing to bet that she considers those of us who resent paying for godless government schools as being uneducated.
Finally, anyone who "believes" that "Separation of Church and State" exists in our nation's founding documents is a blithering idiot.
There is a solution to the continual curriculum and policy wars in our compulsory, godless, police threat government indoctrination centers.
Solution: Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 schools.