Replies

Um...by teaching the controversy. The students have brains, don't they? And surely they can think for themselves when presented with the arguments and evidence from both sides? Or perhaps the evolutionists are afraid that their hypotheses will not withstand critical analysis?

Evolution has undergone a century and a half of critical analysis. If you really want to get into critical analysis, you need to be well versed in a myriad of biological sciences at a graduate or post-doctoral level. That's where the criticality is located and it is not against evolution, but hashing out details we still don't understand. That does not belong at a high school level.

And if you want to get critical, there has yet to be a shred of evidence in support of a viable alternative to evolution or a test that has invalidated evolution. Like other posters have said, this is nothing but an attempt to introduce religion, via pseudoscientific nonsense into the classroom. The fallacies introduced by anti-evolution types is more damaging to students educations than the creationist manifestation they worship.

"Evolution has undergone a century and a half of critical analysis"

False. Evolution has undergone a century and a half of faithful propagandistic propping and patching. It has been ardently protected from critical analysis.

"And if you want to get critical, there has yet to be a shred of evidence in support of a viable alternative to evolution or a test that has invalidated evolution."

And the flood/fossil record that covers the Earth accomplishes both nicely. It fits the word, and demolishes evolution by many methods, but the most obvious is the nonexistence of intermediate forms. There should be billions of intermediates, but instead we find heavily redundant examples of the same creatures in diverse places. Exactly what Special Creation predicts.

Evolution has undergone a century and a half of critical analysis.

Please....I can't even get evolutionists on this forum to answer a single fundamental question that I've been asking for quite some time now. To wit:

What physical event does natural selection explain, that isn't already explained by drift, recombination, and mutation. None of which, in and of themselves, infer evolution.

If natural selection can not explain any physical event, then has no business being in a scientific theory. Period.

The fallacies introduced by anti-evolution types is more damaging to students educations than the creationist manifestation they worship.

High School textbooks have been revised to remove many fallacies due to the current criticisms… How long would you have these fallacies stay in the textbooks without criticism?

The fallacies introduced by anti-evolution types is more damaging to students educations than the creationist manifestation they worship.

I'm sure that explains the dearth of great scientists and inventors that existed BEFORE evolution was taught in the public school system.

there has yet to be...a test that has invalidated evolution.

When you have people running around here claiming that the test for falsification is the production of a clone through biological reproduction, you have to ask yourself...