Replies

I count myself an evolutionist (or at least a pro-science person), and am not only NOT deeply saddened but happy.

Questioning existing theories and attempting to falsify them IS solid science. It's only when talking about presenting material that is NOT science in a science class that I have a problem. If you were to say present the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster in a biology class that would be bad, or if you presented Apache (native american) creation as science.

As to the book issue, I DO consider that bad in that there is PHYSICAL evidence that is being skipped over (regardless if it's good or bad for evolution is immaterial.)

Other than that, this is a good thing, questioning science is how it advances.

flying spaghetti monster!

In his holy name, Ramen!

Scientific challenge of theorys clearly belongs in science class. An I with you see this as what is expected and makes me neither deeply saddened nor should I be happy. It is simply the process. Religious views belong in philosophy class. I have no problem with that, it belongs there. If someone trusts in a particular religious view, they can attend the church of their choice as we are free to do in this nation.

All the evidence I have observed in my time indicates an evolutionary process has taken place. and more and more evidence is discovered every year supporting this.
Did it happen exactly the way science thinks right now?
probably not. But just as a puzzle becomes more clear as you put more of the pieces in, the picture becomes more clear. If people choose to see supernatural influence in that picture. That is their freedom to do so.
"Choose" being the operative word there.
Creation?

Which one?

There are hundreds. All claiming to be the "truth".
I like facts better. Everyone has their own "truth" these days.

but for some its "turtles all the way down".............

"A well known scientist has just finished a public lecture on cosmology, describing how the Earth orbits the Sun, the Moon orbits the Earth, and even the sun itself orbits around the galactic center along with billions of other stars which constitute our galaxy. At the end of the lecture an old woman in the back stands up and says, "What you've told us is rubbish! I happen to know the world is a flat plate resting on the back of four gigantic elephants!"

"And what do the elephants stand on?" says the scientist, thinking to foil her.

She crows back, "Why, on the back of an even larger turtle, of course!"

"And what does the turtle stand on?" he continues, sure he has her now.

"On the back of another turtle!"

"And what does that turtle stand on?" asks the scientist, now growing exasperated.

"It's no use, young man," the old woman replies brightly, "it's turtles all the way down!"

As to the book issue, I DO consider that bad in that there is PHYSICAL evidence that is being skipped over (regardless if it's good or bad for evolution is immaterial.)

You mean like the physical evidence that the "sudden" Cambrian "explosion" took place over millions of years? Or that many of the Cambrian organisms had precursors in the Precambrian? Or that many phyla didn't appear until way after the Cambrian?

Yes, I hope the books cover facts like these too. :-)

Questioning existing theories and attempting to falsify them IS solid science.

The problem, however, is that the high school level is not the appropriate place for such attempts. Moreover, applying such a standard in a high school cirriculum only to evolution and not to any other scientific explanation can create the false impression that evolution is "less certain" than the rest of science. You will find that this act of deception is often the fundamental goal of those who advocate such standards.