Posted on 02/15/2006 10:25:06 AM PST by SirLinksalot
I thought Richard Dawkins proved there was no God? The almighty highmaster of truth has spoken....why are we even continuing on with this controversy? SARCASM/
I thought Eugenie Scott proved there was no God and that's why the National Center for Science Education is dedicated to making sure God is never mentioned in public schools.
I'm sorry but this is unacceptable. Don't we in Ohio know we must bow at the alter of Evolution, and bow to no other.
It has nothing to do with what parents want their kids to learn (and it's all learning), it has everything to do with what atheists and pure Darwinists (not trying to make a direct correlation between the two, but I'd bet there is a pretty broad overlap) want to teach the kids.
As long as biology teachers hew strictly to "scientific" evidence, and do not entertain non-scientific viewpoints, musings, philosophies, or diatribes (B) is fine.
Meaning: (A) and (B) are the same thing when a purely scientific presentation is concerned. The question could have been more accurately worded in terms of the intent of DI as:
Which of the following two statements come closest to your own opinion?
A) Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.
B) Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the counter-propaganda promoted to cast doubt on the theory of evolution due to Christian religious traditions.
C) Neither/Not Sure
I think (B) would get less support if it was more accurately worded.
I agree, teach the controversy. In politics, philosophy or current events classes, teach how proponents of ID twist the facts, ignore evidence and outright lie and perjure themselves in order to wedge creationism in the door.
"Don't we in Ohio know we must bow at the alter[sic] of Evolution, and bow to no other."
If you're bowing to altars in science class in Ohio, that would explain some things... ;-)
I completely agree with the answer that said "Scientific evidence that conflicts with evolution should also be presented". The fact is, though, that there is very little such evidence. It is also true that future refinements of evolutionary theory will likely account for any discrepancies.
I'll second that.
There is no credible scientific evidence against the theory of evolution.
There are a lot of people who, for religious reasons, refuse to accept evolution and, from this refusal, contort science (what I call "pretzel science") in a vain effort to discredit evolution. This contortion of science is not science.
Another perfect example of this "pretzel science" is flood geology.
> Would you be including this as part of your "counter-propaganda promoted...to Christian religious traditions"?!
What... the discovery that 500,000 years ago there were chimps? That's hardly surprising, and in no way counters evolution since the ancestor of both humans and chimps predated *that* by several million years.
Now, declaring that a 500,000 year old chimp somehow invalidates evolution... that *would* be propaganda, and not very well thought out propaganda. Using a 500,000 year old fossil to prove the world is only 6000 years old... tsk, tsk, tsk....
No, it because it's not scientific evidence against evolution. There's nothing there that contradicts evolutionary theory. Theories of human dispersion and origin might need modification, but that's different.
IMO, the Darwinian dogma of macro-evolution has sufficient falsehood and absurdity to completely unravel on its own.
That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. (Don't hold your breath.)
Yes, yes, I know.
The maximum age that 14C can be used for is about 50,000 years. Fossils older than that require other kinds of dating methods.
> I don't believe that fossil is even close to being 500K years old.
Your belief is based on your own testing, I take it?
> Can its age be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
"Proven" in the courtroom sense? Quite probably.
> Radiocarbon ain't gonna cut it.
Which is why they certainyl didn't use that. I'm sure they didn't figure out the fossils age by asking it, either. Probably used some of those *other* methods available, doncha think?
> Darwinian ToE is still inconsistent, chock full of holes, and ultimately untenable.
Based on...
> Nice homepage, BTW </sarc>
Everybody's a critic.
Exactly.
The Ham rating scale, created in honor of famous creationist Ken Ham , rates creationist articles on how stupid, mendacious, nonsensical, irrational, and just generally bad they are, ranging from one ham - only slightly silly - up to five hams - utterly mind-numbing.
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.