Posted on 03/23/2005 10:48:58 PM PST by Quick1
Just about everything we learn in science is considered a theory. Very few notions that we hold to be true have been proven beyond a doubt, or without some exception we cannot explain. Evolution is one such theory, but it is a scientific theory based on scientific evidence based on a scientific process, which is why it is taught in science classes along with other scientific theories. Creationism or ID is vertainly welcome in other classes, but not science.
"All I teach now is creationism to home schoolers. Evolution has way too many holes in it's theories for me to teach it to children."
And our students continue to fall behind in the sciences....
Sounds like two to get three to me.
No it doesn't.
Or was the humor?
In case it wasn't:
Two species to form another ONE. The two did not form THREE. The first two pre-existed. They formed another ONE.
I don't think either should be taught, most kids are going to question what were taught when they get older anyhow. Of course the real debate is between the two theories, not which should be taught.
I don't fully understand evolution, I understand survival of the strongest and passing those genes on to the next generation, over and over again. And changing locations and environmental conditions and all that. What I don't get is how an aquatic species can ever evolve into an amphibious or terrestrial one, or vice versa. How can a species adapt to an environment it can't survive for one minute in?
My big questions with creationism are: How do dinosaurs fit into it? Since we know the bones are 65 million years old. And how do jillions of other planets and solar systems fit into it? I guess I'm asking anyone who wants to tackle it.
Big time. Thanks.
|
Come on, this crap again. You do realize, don't you, that by far the majority of people who believe that the vast mountain of evidence supports the theory of evolution are also CHRISTIANS?
Not to mention that a test for design is equally problematic. Would you reasonably conclude, for example, if you saw a mountain with a human face on it that this was the product of design? Well, yes if that mountain is Mt. Rushmore, and no if it is the Man in the Mountain in New Hampshire. Those who say design is obvious have failed to really consider the problem. What is needed is a test that distinguishes design from non-design with reference only to the observable characteristics of the item under test, and no reference to the history of the item or any external data. As my example shows, this is very problematic.
You know you can have it both ways. You can present the evidence that evolution occurs in science class. You can then present the idea of ID in a philosophy class. The two are not contradictory. The origin of life has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Evolution explains the changes that life underwent after being formed. Furthermore, evolution does not specifically require a non-designed process. Evolution simply states that the variation of allele frequencies in organism populations varies over time and that this variation gives rise to new species of organisms. Currently, we speak of random mutation as one mechanism of increasing genetic variability. However, there's no requirement that these mutations be random. What if they are the product of design, by a designer utilizing the process of evolution to produce a desired end product? Evolution would still be a valid theory in science which explains the data and makes new predictions. ID would still be a valid philosophical belief. I am not saying that this is truly what is happening, but rather I am using this as an example to point out that the two ideas are not really contradictory. What is true, however, is that as the situation currently stands, evolution does make predictions which can be tested by observations of physical evidence whereas ID does not. Therefore, evolution belongs in science while ID does not.
The fundamentalists believe they are on a roll now that W has been reelected. Indeed, they think they were the sum total of the people who put him in office, completely ignoring all the other Republican factions out there. And now, the fundamentalists believe they can push their agendas through legislatures. I figure there'll be a lot more of these abominable measures put before our representatives before it's all over.
"Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue."
Darn, wish I'd gone to law school in Florida. I could be getting back at my contracts professor for all my "hurt feeling" as we speak! This bill is great! It gives all Florida students standing to be whiny little wusses!
Yea, they need to make these professors wear a Scarlet E.
Thank you, you sensible, sensible person.
This isn't a science class, this is a university environment! Evolution is the unifying theory of biology and to pull it out of college does a serious, serious disservice to all of us. If you don't understand evolution, you can't do modern biology. Couple this with the Shaivo case, and I will never, ever support another conservative as long as I live. These fools will destroy our scientific advancement and put us in the dark ages by labeling superstition and mythology a scientific enterprise. What these politicians are doing to evolution, they are doing to all of science. The again, to some of these people, it is better to be saved and go to heaven dumb and ignorant than to actually have an education that can have a positive impact on the human race.
Not according to the Republicans in Tallahassee. If it isn't perfect, it can't be taught as science. My company, whose R&D center is in Florida, already complains about the appauling lack of science education in the state. The state is trying to attract high tech companies to Florida, but the employees are reluctant to relocate here because of the abysmall education system in science. And we have a very hard time finding qualified scientists in the local work force. Almost all of our consultants are from the northeast (MIT, U Conn, etc.).
You take remarkable pride in being ignorant of the theory which you supposedly find ridiculous on its face.
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.