Posted on 11/16/2010 8:16:44 PM PST by balch3
A state advisory panel Friday voted 8-4 to endorse a variety of high school science textbooks that have come under fire for how they describe evolution.
The vote was followed more than three hours of discussion.
Two of the “no” votes were cast by Senate Education Committee Chairman Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, and House Education Committee Vice-Chairman Frank Hoffmann, R-West Monroe.
The decision likely paves the way for the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to approve the textbooks when it meets Dec. 7-9. The textbooks that t
(Excerpt) Read more at 2theadvocate.com ...
Reason #75635 for homeschooling
The real issue with evolution is this: I am sorry but nature is a cruel mistress. If you don’t outperform the others in resource consumption, and capacity to pass on your genes into the pool, then you lose out to the others. The irony here is that the people who the libs argue are so backward show evidence of understanding this very theory of natural selection while the libs are advocating to everyone to go down on the losing side with them (a.k.a. decline in population). So riddle me this? Are some of these people out there really that ignorant about it, as shown by what they are doing?
Evolution is really stupid. I mean, it is so implausible, and yet its repeated as fact even by those who should know better.
I am a strong Christian conservative, and homeschooled all my daughters through high school graduation.
All that being said, we taught them what the theory of evolution is about, and we taught them the theory of creation. We also taught them where we stand on both.
Creation theory? Yes - even though I personally have a very strong opinion and belief on this, scientifically, BOTH are theories, because they cannot be reproduced to be proven
The thing that most people on both sides of the aisle don’t realize is this - there are many points, sub-points, differing opinions, differing aspects to the main theory, allies to travel down, rabbits to chase, etc. on both evolution and creation. Micro evolution or macro? Species to species or intraspecies? Literal 24/7 or old earth creation?
You simply cannot lump all evolutionists or all creationists into one basket. Just won’t work.
This is why we exposed our daughters to as many differing view points on both sides of the aisle - that would be “education,” not simply “indoctrination.” They have all be able to stun and silence both creationists and evolutionist (of their age.....) with thought-provoking questions that neither had considered.
My .02
“This is why we exposed our daughters to as many differing view points on both sides of the aisle - that would be “education,” not simply “indoctrination.” They have all be able to stun and silence both creationists and evolutionist (of their age.....) with thought-provoking questions that neither had considered.”
That’s exactly what I’m for.
Public schools only want to teach one side and assume that most students will blindly accept it because that’s what most academics believe.
On the other hand there are some parents who don’t to expose their kids to evolution or other uncomfortable ideas and then when their kids reach college, they don’t have any answers or responses to the challenges and become complete religion-hating atheists as a result.
In a way they do. Think about Krugman and the death panels...
Echoes of the oft-cited medieval "angels dancing on the head of a pin, btw.
(And what about "intelligent design" *by committee* ? Microsoft Windows ME is *known* to have been the product of design -- by intelligent specialists, yet -- and it is still a piece of sh*t. So apparent engineering design flaws (routing of ocular nerves into the chest, location of the genitalia next to the anus (the "playground next to toxic waste dump" joke) are not sufficient evidence against design.)
Stirring the pot, I like to see the wheels in people's heads whirring away.
Cheers!
Creationism is not a scientific “theory” but there is nothing wrong with attributing creation to God. Albert Einstein was a creationist in the strict sense.
Exactly right. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not falsifiable, hence not scientific "theories". Disproving either means proving a negative, which is logically impossible.
Albert Einstein was a creationist in the strict sense.
Not sure about Einstein, but Isaac Newton is probably an even better example. For one who actually bothered reading his own journals and collected writings would classify him in modern terms as both a Creationist and a Doomsday cultist (He wrote a math equation that calculated that Jesus would come back in 2050).
However, Einstein does get my credit in terms of being the person I quote rediculously often.
http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html
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.