Georgia may shun 'evolution' in schools

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 1/29/2004 | MARY MacDONALD

[whattajoke]

So you deny that the goal of socialist-communist-humanist governemnts and organizations is to remove any mention of God from society at large?

scream and yell this all you want, but I fail to see WTF that has to do with a change in allele frequency over time.

You're in med school. You mean to tell me you can't separate the science you learn from your faith? If not, stay the hell away from my children.

[realpatriot71]

Evolution came about because it was the best explanation to fit observed evidence. It was not invented out of thin air as a justification for a completely secular worldview. If you want to argue that evolution is wrong, then point out where the theory is in error. Lying about the very origin of the theory does not hurt anyone's credibility but your own.

Did a group of evil, atheistic scientists get together with the expressed goal of getting rid of God by developing a disabolical theory that removed God? Uhhhh, no, and I'm not suggesting that. However, for all practical purposes, the theory, idea, conjecture of evolution has been used to do exactly that, create generation after generation of unbelievers because they are easier to control. And if you think that evolution is not a tool used by the socialists to accomplish part of their goal, you're blind. I personally think this is food for thought, and this is the reason other ideas and thoughts on origins should be mentioned in the classroom (remember this thread is about the classroom, not wether evolution is correct or not). I guess one lecture or hand-out comes to close to challenging your cherished beliefs that this should not be allowed. Also if evolution is as self-evident and other ideas are mere myths, then students will be able to see, right? So why the opposition?

[balrog666]

You're in med school. You mean to tell me you can't separate the science you learn from your faith? If not, stay the hell away from my children.

Holy cr@p! A med student who doesn't understand the fundamental concepts of the scientific method or the theory of evolution? How did he get into med school?

[Dimensio]

However, for all practical purposes, the theory, idea, conjecture of evolution has been used to do exactly that, create generation after generation of unbelievers because they are easier to control. And if you think that evolution is not a tool used by the socialists to accomplish part of their goal, you're blind.

Even if this is true (And I very seriously doubt that it is), it's irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.

I personally think this is food for thought, and this is the reason other ideas and thoughts on origins should be mentioned in the classroom (remember this thread is about the classroom, not wether evolution is correct or not).

So you want to teach non-scientific garbage in a science classroom because some people have misused the theory of evolution to justify social policy? For some reason, that does not sound like valid reasoning.

I guess one lecture or hand-out comes to close to challenging your cherished beliefs that this should not be allowed.

I don't have a problem with teaching alternative scientific theories to evolution. The problem is that, thus far, there aren't any alternative scientific theories.

Also if evolution is as self-evident and other ideas are mere myths, then students will be able to see, right? So why the opposition?

I oppose teaching Creationism in a biology class for the same reason that I oppose teaching of the Pillars of Islam in a geometry class.

[balrog666]

And if you think that evolution is not a tool used by the socialists to accomplish part of their goal, you're blind.

So what? A tool is a tool is a tool.

Or would a statement like:

And if you think that guns are not a tool used by the socialists to accomplish part of their goal, you're blind.

... make you want to ban all guns?

It seems that you need to learn to separate cause and effect from meaningless correlation.

[RightWingNilla]

Clear enough?

Nice try. You don't have to be a Christian to be a creationist. Also many of us who ridicule "creation science" are Christians. And as a Christian I do not want to be associated with such idiocy.

[realpatriot71]

Yes, it is hard for me to fight against creationists who react so harshly because they feel threatened by their cherished beliefs being challenged when reality completely contradicts them

Evolution does not challenge my cherished beliefs at all. In fact, I expect man to try and explain Creation (with or withour God). Science does not consider the "supernatural" because it is unreproducible by definition. I have no problem with this. It makes sense as far as the scientific method is concerned. As well as this, one cannot also reproduce, experimentally, all the change necessary for evolution either, so to take what can be objectvely seen today and extrapolate backwards is a completely scientific and rational approach. Addmittedly, all of evolutionary theory is trying to give rational explanations (conjecture if you will) to try and "connect the dots" between what can be objectively seen today. Unfortunately, science holds to this "cherished belief" like any religious institution holds to a dogma, and doesn't allow any questioning of evolution or origins. Science discounts the probabilities, lack of genetic evidence for beneficial mutations, and completely ignores any biochemical problems to the origin of life from chemicals, to name a few. Yet, science's answer is: "we're here, so it must have happened that way!" What other area of scientifc discovery is such an answer appropriate?

[realpatriot71]

You mean to tell me you can't separate the science you learn from your faith?

The Ministry of Healing has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. I'm training to become a "human mechanic" not an evolutionary biologist. What we currently know about human anataomy and physiology as it applies to the medicine of the human today, does rest on any sort of evolutionary foundation.

I would treat your children just fine, but like any good or service in this country, there's more than one of us.

[realpatriot71]

A med student who doesn't understand the fundamental concepts of the scientific method or the theory of evolution? How did he get into med school?

Quite easily actually . . .

[RightWingNilla]

You're the "conservative" in bed with communist doctrine, not me.

I am afraid you and others here have this all backwards.

The creationsts are the ones who would like to see certain knowledge prohibited from being taught in schools. If there was a viable alternative scientific theory in addition to evolution, rest assured it would be included in the curriculum. But there isn't.

[Dimensio]

As well as this, one cannot also reproduce, experimentally, all the change necessary for evolution either,

Actually, it can. You need lots and lots of time -- longer than a human lifespan -- for long-term results, but it's not difficult to do short-term experiments and extrapolate from the results. No, it's not perfect, but one of the underlying assumptions of science is that the physical properties of the universe as they are now have held up for the past several billion years (if they haven't, then all of science comes into question).

Addmittedly, all of evolutionary theory is trying to give rational explanations (conjecture if you will) to try and "connect the dots" between what can be objectively seen today.

Conjecture? More like reasoned conclusions based upon fossil evidence and genetic similarities across various species.

Unfortunately, science holds to this "cherished belief" like any religious institution holds to a dogma, and doesn't allow any questioning of evolution or origins.

What are you talking about? Science always encourages questioning. The problem is that thus far no one has been able to disprove it, yet they still run around declaring victory.

When someone actually disproves the theory of evolution rather than presents an irrelevant conclusion from faulty data and logical fallacies, it will turn all of biology on its head. They will probably win a Nobel Prize.

Science discounts the probabilities,

What probabilities?

lack of genetic evidence for beneficial mutations,

There's actually a very good reason for discounting the lack of genetic evidence for beneficial mutation. That reason is that there is genetic evidence for beneficial mutation. But do go on.

, and completely ignores any biochemical problems to the origin of life from chemicals

I'd address this, but "the origin of life from chemicals" is utterly irrelevant to evolution.

Yet, science's answer is: "we're here, so it must have happened that way!"

Wrong. Science's answer is "we're here, these fossils are here, these DNA patterns are here, here and here across several species, so thus far this is the best explanation that fits the observed evidence."

[realpatriot71]

And if you think that guns are not a tool used by the socialists to accomplish part of their goal, you're blind. ... make you want to ban all guns?

Straw man. Guns are not a tool used to chnage the heart, soul, and mind, and in this case evolution is.

I'm not a violent guy at all, but if they want my gun, I'd like to see them try and take it.

[jennyp]

"In order to capture this nation, one has to totally remove moral and spiritual values and absolutes from the thinking of the child. The child has to think that there is no standard of right and wrong, that truth is relative, and that diversity is the only absolute to be gained." - American Humanist Association

Could you give me a cite for that? I googled "diversity is the only absolute to be gained", and all it came up with was 4 copies of "Remarks to the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee by T. C. Pinckney" from 2001.

This sounds to me like (yet) another creationist fantasy quotes.

[realpatriot71]

The creationsts are the ones who would like to see certain knowledge prohibited from being taught in schools.

Not me - teach it.

[Blzbba]

Revelation 7:1

"And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. "


This has been used to justify flat-earth, long before it was proven to be a sphere. My usage of 'pillars' was incorrect, which I am admitting here.

[Dimensio]

Guns are not a tool used to chnage the heart, soul, and mind, and in this case evolution is.

I don't know about the soul (I've thus far not even seen evidence that this "soul" thing exists), but I imagine that a gun could easily be employed to change someone's heart or mind from "working" to "non-working".

The mere presence of a gun can change someone's attitude in a lot of situations.

Not that I buy your claims regarding evolution.

[longshadow]

astounded placemarker

[Blzbba]

The Bible also supports an 'immovable' earth, which has also been proven false.

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”


all of the above have been proven to be fiction.

[RightWingNilla]

Science discounts the probabilities, lack of genetic evidence for beneficial mutations

No offense, but what kind of medical school are you attending? Haven't you taken any molecular genetics? microbiology? At our institution even the med students learn to do some bioinformatics and sequence analysis.