Posted on 02/27/2004 12:04:20 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
You have redefined the issue to support your contention.
Originally you put up the entire theory of evolution against the heliocentric nature of the solar system -- or so I interpreted your post, and perhaps I was mistaken in your intent -- and now you're talking about "animals changing over time" and the entire scope of planetary motion.
How does that occur? There are several good ideas, but that's a far from settled point.
Precisely, teach the theory, the good ideas, and make it clear what is solid and what is speculative.
The difference is between science saying or implying "[science proves] God doesn't exist" and saying or implying "God may or may not exist, we aren't going there".
How is that any more a gap in the heliocentric model than in the geocentric?
For that matter, why is that even a gap at all? What would cause the orbits to be unstable?
I agree with what you wrote but have you ever heard of a teacher saying such a thing to a class? Is this really an issue? Is it necessary for the OK house to pass a bill preventing teachers from getting on all fours and barking like a dog also?
Ah, I said "Teach the theories" and some say "the theories" to mean creationism and evolution.
No, I was defending as not entirely illogical the placement of a disclaimer in textbooks by the legislature regarding the treatment of scientific theory, though not the idea of limiting it to evolution or even using a disclaimer as the means.
My only worry is there won't be enough time for real biology while the class learns about 100,000 creation myths.
Yes, I think it is an issue in many classrooms, at least in public schools. The liberal worldview that invades many schools includes an anti-religious bias. The question of evolution and what that means in relation to religious belief comes up when this topic is covered, I expect, and my teachers treated it fairly; I suspect some others would not.
What the legislature, or school board, should do about it is difficult to say. Keeping a close eye on the curricula, I suppose, take a good look at the textbooks (probably comes up more in history and whatnot than science) and be responsive to student and parental complaints.
I agree with you. In a biology class, evolution is pretty much fact. When studying cosmology (the study of the origin of the universe including life), evolution is theory (in that the theory of evolution does not even try to address the origin of life). In the realm of philosophy, evolution and creationism have equal footing. The article says nothing about teaching creationism is the school. I just think it is pretty funny watching Evo-Reactionaries overreact.
Pointing out that evolution as an explanation for the origin of life is merely a theory encourages students to THINK IT OUT rather than spoon feeding them theories as fact basically telling them to not bother thinking about it since it has already been figured out.
I will say some are using measures like this to push for the teaching of creationism in biology class - I am against that. But pointing out that evolution is a theory and not fact is the truth and nobody should fear the teaching of truth to children.
So you are claiming a student that understands evolution is a theory and not proven fact makes them unable to have career in science. This is REALLY funny stuff.
This textbook disclaimer nonsense if taken seriously automatically puts OK kids at a disadvantage.
The disclaimer states the truth. Why do you fear the truth?
It's amazing how ignorant the lost are...pray for the Truth.
IF necessary, yes. Pretending theories are facts limits ones ability to question and learn. If we used Right Wing Professor's logic hundreds of years ago we would assume the earth is flat is a fact and not bother thinking about it again.
In my opinion, any college level student who does not accept that the theory of evolution is the only scientific explanation which is supported by the tremendous amount of objective evidence should not pursue a major in the sciences.
This is pretty funny.
The disclaimer only states that evolution is a theory not proved fact.
You are strongly against the disclaimer.
Above you state evolution is a theory.
You statements are not consistent.
As for your claim "the only explanation..." that is merely your personal opinion. Science should never deal in the realm of opinion. The Earth being flat used to be the only scientific explanation which was supported by the tremendous amount of objective evidence...see where that got us in the continuum of learning.
Since evolution finds its starting point at "hell if I know" or "a miracle happened" - I don't think it is time to turn off thinking and assume we have it all figured out.
ever tried praying for snow in june? you'll get the same results: nothing.
I have a friend who lives in Colorado. Last year it snowed in June. Guess your theory is faulty.
Evolutionary theory is no more deserving of a disclaimer that any other subject taught in school. Why aren't folks clamoring for a disclaimer on atomic theory? Or Newtonian Physics?
As for your claim "the only explanation..." that is merely your personal opinion.
Kindly direct me to another scientific explanation.
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.