Posted on 02/19/2009 4:06:47 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Narrative Summary
4. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?
(Click excerpt link for responses)
5. Charles Darwin wrote that when considering the evidence for his theory of evolution, “…a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Darwin’s statement?
(Click excerpt link for responses)
6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B?
Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.
Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.
(Click excerpt link for responses)
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
ping!
Isn’t that interesting that it is the position that Sarah Palin advocates and has taken so much heat on from fellow politicians and the MSM.
“but also the scientific evidence against it.”
As worded that means NOT teaching ID.
Just goes to show the jackbooted tactics that are being employed to shield neo-Darwinian evolution from scientific scrutiny.
None of these excerpted questions are controversial. Any scientific issue should cover evidence both for and against.
But evidence against evolution, whatever that may be, does not equate to creationism.
==Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it
As worded that means NOT teaching Darwin’s fanciful creation myth.
Saying you think both sides of the issue should be discussed and weighed objectively is one thing. Actually doing it proves to be quite another matter.
So you’re saying that evidence of a young earth, an orchard of trees instead of a tree of life, no transitional fossils or missing links, evidence of a global flood, etc, etc, should not be placed in the creation science side of the ledger?
It should include teaching enough about ID, so that students can say why it isn’t a scientific theory.
It helps to provide both examples, and non-examples to teach about any concept. If you wish to teach why evolution is a scientific theory — it would help to be able to distinguish it from theories you don’t consider scientific.
Please note, the above concerns pedagogy only — it isn’t meant to be a comment on the substantive issues (between evolution, and ID, etc.).
Yes, this is something evolutionists have never been adept at honestly evaluating.
The word ‘Universal’ means all-encompassing...hence the schools of learning are called ‘Universities’. Any knowledge that is suppressed is pure censorship. If the theory of Evolution proponents are so secure in their ‘science’ then why should the concepts of ‘creationism’ be such a threat?
Teach all the creationism you want, in religion class. Not in science class.
==If the theory of Evolution proponents are so secure in their ‘science’ then why should the concepts of ‘creationism’ be such a threat?
Because the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism is really a rival religion dressed in scientific garb:
See this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2189225/posts
Then read this:
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
—Richard C. Lewontin, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology and Professor of Biology at Harvard University, 1997
As opposed to the argument that it's satatism?
Real cute: In public indoctrination centers, there are no religion classes.
Wow, you guys are gutless.
Pointing out problems and objections in one theory is not the same thing as building an alternative theory.
Trying to pick holes in evolution doesn’t make creationism a science.
No, as opposed to having a mocicum of intellectual integrity.
Even if true, that wouldn't entitle creationism to be taught in science class.
But it's not true anyway. There are religion classes in most universities. Comparative religion, mythology, literature, etc.
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.