Replies

Pastor Bud Surles who said "evolution is more a product of Hollywood movies than based on real science."

The average Hollywood movie watcher is too limited to understand or care about real evolution. What is presented as evolution by Hollywood nothing more than excuse to waste $100 million on special effects in place of an compelling plot. Evolution is a product of a century and a half of painstaking research done by many who have devoted their lives to it.

Pastor Bud Surles is your typical, ignorant Liar for Christ. (not implying that all Christians are this way)

"It shall be the policy ... when teaching Darwin's theory of evolution that it is only a theory and not a fact. Teachers shall be allowed in a neutral and objective manner to introduce all scientific theories of origin, and the students may be allowed to discuss all aspects of controversy surrounding the lack of scientific evidence in support of the theory of evolution."

I have a degree in Biology. Evolution was briefly covered in my semester of Genetics and covered slightly more in my semester of Genetics of Populations. However, the idea of man evolving from chimps or birds evolving from snakes or dinosaurs evolving from whatever they evolved from did not come up - it was not necessary. The evolutionary concept that we dealt with in Genetics was the simple mutation of a gene. The evolutionary concept that we dealt with in Genetics of Populations was the simple, minor, observable change in genetic makeup of a given population.

I also took both standard Biology and Advanced Placement Biology in high school. Evolution was discussed for about one day - and that was in the context of other theories/hypotheses regarding the origin of species - aquired characteristics, creation, etc. It was not essential to understanding Biology - just a background of general knowledge on the subject biology.

This is a giant non-issue.

"High school student Charity Ward told the board she took one of Bellis' classes. She urged the board not to teach 'abstinence-only,' saying she found it helpful to learn about sexually transmitted diseases and other potential consequences of having sex."

How does one conduct "abstinence education" without covering STD's? What do they think abstinence education is - just a 10 second class where the teacher says "don't have sex"? There has to be an explanation - don't have sex before you're married, and here is why: pregnancy, STD's, the fact that condoms are not 100% effective, even if used properly. Of course, this is all operating on the assumption that sex education has a place in government school - it does not. And, that question is based on the assumption that there should even be government schools - there should not. Thus, the root of the problem - government schools.

It continues to astound me that many religious conservatives perpetually relegate themselves to the lunatic fringe by being so strident about evolution. As Arnold was known to say in one of his movies "This does not help our mission".

If you're going to deny the facts - the paloentology, the genetics, the biochemistry, the comparitive anatomy, etc. - then you're going to get tagged as a kook, whether you like or not.

Being considered a kook thereby makes it easier for the mainstream to dismiss your other positions, on abortion, on sexual conduct, on individual vs. government responsibility, and many more.

And it gets you nothing! The battle is lost. Evolution, though just a theory and undoubtedly flawed in ways that will be refined in the future, is the current best understanding of how life on Earth developed. None of the creationist alternatives can get around that. The latest entry, "intelligent design" can be reduced to a single proposition - "I just don't see how something that complex could have evolved, therefore it must have been created."

That form of arrogance - "I don't understand it therefore it couldn't have happened" - is unbecoming of a Christian. Far better to practice the humility your religion expects of you. To look the facts squarely in the face and realize that if God chose evolution as the mechanism to produce man, then there's no conflict. Evolution and religion are perfectly compatible. Then you don't relegate yourselves to the kook gallery and get ignored on every other issue you press.

I have not posted to an evolution vs. creation thread in years, and I'm not going to be drawn into another debate with people who cannot distinguish between fact and opinion, and dismiss hard evidence with a wave of their hand when it conflicts with their "faith" that evolution is wrong. I'm just letting you creationist folks know that you are wasting your energy and marginalizing yourselves for no good reason.

"Science teachers are prohibited from teaching creationism due to the Supreme Court ruling Edwards v. Aquillard, which states that teaching creation science is a religious idea and thus an illegal violation of the church-state separation.

UGGG, another mistaken Supreme Court ruling. And if we had made a Saint out of Isaac Newton, would they also forbid F=ma ?

Imho, letting kids know about evolution and what natural selection means and what fossils tell us, and also present what creationists think, then moving on quickly to bust open a frog and learn photosynthesis is the best way to handle it. No big deal. As someone noted here, it's not critical point in understanding most of biology. You could take years of mol. cell biology and evolution of species wouldnt enter into it.