Should evolution be taught in high school science classes?

Modesto Bee ^ | 10/27/03 | Richard Anderson

[Dales]

Editor's note: Ted Dickason, a candidate for Modesto City Schools board of trustees, has stated that he believes evolution and creationism should be taught side by side in high school science classes. This position has generated substantial debate in the community, including this article opposing the teaching of creationism in schools and the two letters to the editor to the right supporting creationism and/or Dickason.

[Physicist]

Go back further, did the water just come in to existence by accident?

Well, no. Water is a very minimal energy state; given hydrogen and oxygen, it's almost impossible to avoid. You'll have to go back much further than that. In fact, you'll have to go all the way back to when the fundamental physical constants were fixed (until we learn more about how they were fixed, that is). If that's where you want to hide your designer, fine for now...but you've ceded the whole territory covered by the theory of evolution.

[Naspino]

They just need to fess up and be honest about what they know and what they believe. I can not tell you how many times in science books I saw stuff like:

"64,047,485 years ago.."

To me that reads like "..many say the tax cut will kill children.."

[f.Christian]

I was called the ghengis khan of Christianity today for libeling evolutionists ...

calling them nazis ---

I asked ...

When did evos become ... democratic - pluralistic --- I missed it !

No answer ... waiting !

Move to Russia to get our freedom back ... that's a jolt --- mind therapy !

[stanz]

Very good! I love it.

[freedumb2003]

My friend bought "Science Made Supid" for me years ago -- it was a thrill to see it online

[Ogmios]

Yes, indeed, evidence is all around me that we exist.

Evolution, Abiogenesis, The Big Bang are all scientific theories regarding it.

Creationism, ID, religion, are faith based Dogmas that try to explain it,

So,we have a scientific explanation, and a religious one.

That is the difference, one is science, and one is religion.

Scientific explanations should be taught in a science class, religious explanations should be taught in a church or possibly philosophy class.

[HankReardon]

Off topic, but I understand, after the landowners took their cuts, the serfs of the middle ages were allowed to retain more of what they produced for themselves than Americans are today. And we are the ones who call ourselves Free.

[whattajoke]

There are only 2 choices, that all things accidently came to be or they came to be out of deliberate intent

What about another choice; "things" were an accident of the Designer? That would actually make more sense, as it would give the Designer some leeway and a decent excuse for all His screw-ups, of which there are hundreds of thousands.

Might as well look at a computer or an automobile or a picnic table and believe any of these things could have just happened.

This comparison would only apply if computers, automobiles, and picnic tables happened to be living organic organisms. To my knowledge, they are not.

[Held_to_Ransom]

Man does not live by Natural Selection, only God's wild creatures do.

http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/

[HankReardon]

Right, apples and oranges. Living things are much more complex than automobiles, computers or picnic tables, sorry.

[Right Wing Professor]

Life is much more complex than anything we create yet we are intended to believe life just happened.

Maybe we should just wait 200 years. By then we'll have created far more complex things, and then by your logic it'll be OK to assume life evolved.

[whattajoke]

Perhaps you are not understanding. Automobiles, computers, and picnic tables do not procreate. They do not sexually select, they do not have gene pools, they do not seek mates in order to pass their genetic information on to a future generation.

Living organic organisms do. When you accept this difference, and understand why having offspring (sexually or asexually) is important to this discussion, we'll continue.

[f.Christian]

Posted by f.Christian to Sentis

Evolution uses existence as proof with no explanation of existence ... it happens (( big bang ))---

they're comfortable with that gobble - gobble - turkey !


more halloweenie ...


Posted by Sentis to f.Christian

Religion uses God as proof with no explanation of his existence. I know existence exists I don't see god.

[HankReardon]

Yes, agreed, especially with all that considered living things are much more complicated than anything we can deliberately create. Living things do adapt, but a saltwater crocodile, is still a crocodile. Either all things amazingly accidently happened or there was deliberate intent. The latter explanation is SO much more scientific than the first.

[Right Wing Professor]

Either all things amazingly accidently happened or there was deliberate intent. The latter explanation is SO much more scientific than the first.

We have two competing economic systems. One just lets people interact as they wish, with no direction from above. The other acts by deliberate intent of a single superior entity. Which one do you think would build a more advanced society?

[js1138]

Perhaps you are not understanding. Automobiles, computers, and picnic tables do not procreate. They do not sexually select, they do not have gene pools, they do not seek mates in order to pass their genetic information on to a future generation.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of this argument in the future. Already we have computer simulations of evolutionary processes. They are fairly primitive at the moment, but some of them solve real-time process control problems better than other computational methods. From the point of view of people needing to manage complex systems, it's as if the monkeys at typewriters produce shakespeare.

[Ogmios]

Either all things amazingly accidently happened or there was deliberate intent. The latter explanation is SO much more scientific than the first.

I hate to be nitpicky, but there is nothing at all scientific about the latter explanation, it is a leap of faith. It is your faith that tells you this.

Nothing at all scientific about it. Where is your evidence? Where is your hypothesis? Where is you how? There is none.

You are stating that a belief in God is scientific, and it's not, it is religion.

[Physicist]

There are only 2 choices, that all things accidently came to be or they came to be out of deliberate intent, which requires the intelligent designer.

So which one is the answer to #34?

The oldest person in the world died yesterday in Japan. Was her death an accident, or was she murdered?

[f.Christian]

What is a problem is the ...

American atheo - nazi bolshevik reich liberal coup de tat ---

they have illegally established -- via --- EVOLUTION !


To: f.Christian

fC ...

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change.

LC ...

Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule for the assurance technocracy and expert rule.

152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic

fC ...

Right wing FR ARISTOCRACY - leftist nazis Elites !

[f.Christian]

There is a cult infestation on the FR ... America too !

Posted by f.Christian to Admin Moderator; Jim Robinson


Do you all know what is going on in your house ... on this thread --- mind control - engineering by LIBERALS ?


" safe in the hands of scientists) was a very thin layer of society " ...

fC ...

thin like --- ' floating ' !

To: PatrickHenry

"It was an ongoing theme of his. He was well aware that civilization (which he probably felt was safe in the hands of scientists) was a very thin layer of society, and very fragile. His all-time favorite story, Nightfall, involved Luddites storming an observatory. "

Robert heinlein had the same fear. He even called the fundamentalists in his works "Revolt in 2100" is about a second American revolution against these Luddite religious fanatics. It is a very common theme and fear among Science fiction authors.


198 posted on 02/16/2003 9:06 AM PST by Sentis


fC ...

If I was kiting LAW - science and running an illegal ponzi monopoly scheme I would be a paranoid too ... at least feel a little worried --- guilty about doing it !

Democracy -- free speech - THINKING and a populist uprising for a tyrranist is a scary thing ... revolt --- firing squad !


Evolution only --- NO free speech --- NO thinking too !