Bill requiring evolution disclaimer clears House

Claremore Progress ^ | 2/27/04 | Sean Murphy

[JohnnyZ]

But we hold onto the ones that explain our observances until they are falsified.

Is that supposed to disagree with my posts? Teach the theories, but don't pretend they're inviolate, is my position.

[BroncosFan]

Buy them a Noah's Ark; don't make them "buy" Noah's Ark.

[moonman]

by jayef ... I think you got it! geeez. That's because I don't believe in evolution, other than, some humans evolving into jackels (democrats). I've read and studied both sides, I personally believe GOD created all life form. I'm glad you arrived at your conclusions the same way.

[Hodar]

You do realize that Newtonian physics has been disproven, or shown to be not applicable to the world we live in, or only applicable to motion on the earth . . . depends how you want to look at it, the point is his rules aren't universally applicable.

I double-dog dare you to make that statement in any college level physics class. Newtonian physics are definitely NOT disproven, when you get into Relativistic physics (which are based upon Newtonian physics) you will soon realize that components at 'real world' speeds, masses and in non-relativistic timelines have for all intensive purposes zero impact upon the Newtonian model. That's why we refer to the LAWS of gravity, the LAWS of conservation of energy, and the LAWS of thermodynamics. Once disproven, the Laws cease to be Laws; they are trashed.

In Relativistic physics, Einstein showed that previously unthought of components in Newtonian physicls become significant, to the point of over-coming Newtonian components. However, the Newtonian components are always there, their contribution to the overall calculation just becomes less and less significant. If you write out Einstein's various Relativistic formulae, you will see that as mass get's more "earthly" or the speed is significatly below that of the speed of light, components will rapidly approach zero. So, if you simply discount these components as of zero value, you have Newton's formulae left over.

[jayef]

I suppose you think we should teach our children the creation myth and to not pretend it is inviolable, or are we free to poke holes in it as well?

[Physicist]

Are you really trying to compare evolutionary theory -- which its proponents admit is still up in the air in many respects -- to the heliocentric solar system?

Absolutely. The fact that animals change over time is no more disputable than the fact that the sun sits (approximately) at the center of the solar system. The gaps in the detailed models of both are comparable in seriousness. As one example of a gap in the heliocentric model, I give you the long-term stability of planetary orbits. How does that occur? There are several good ideas, but that's a far from settled point.

[jayef]

And your theories survive all tests of falsifyability? What about the dinosaur bones? Do you believe the devil put them here?

[Last Visible Dog]

Well, if they aren't now, they surely will be in a few years when they try to go to accredited colleges with the OK-sponsored nonsense they were taught in school.

OK students will not be allowed in college because their text books are going to state that evolution is a theory not a fact (which is the truth).

Your moniker says it all...whattajoke!

[atlaw]

That explains the Arizona Pig-Man, now what about "Plithdown" man? Maybe the common ancestor of lispers?

[jayef]

I'm fine with the statement that evolution is a theory. I am not fine with telling students that the creation story in The Bible is an equally valid theory. Teach creationism at your church, not at my kid's school.

[moonman]

I have faith and belief in GOD ... not theory.

[gdani]

I suppose you think we should teach our children the creation myth and to not pretend it is inviolable, or are we free to poke holes in it as well?

C'mon now.

What possible holes could be poked in the accounts of Adam & Eve, Noah's Ark, an Earth that is only 6-7,000 years old & talking snakes???

[savedbygrace]

You have now outed yourself as ignorant.

Thousands of home educated young people are being accepted each year by accredited colleges and universities. Many of these young people have been taught that evolution is a theory. They seem to have no problem being accepted at these accredited institutions (even mainstream secular colleges and universities) every year.

Some of these institutions even make a point of seeking home educated youth for admission, because they know they are prepared to learn, they have a great attitude, and they excel in their studies.

These are facts, Mr. Ignorant.

[JohnnyZ]

And heliocentricism isn't controversial?

No, it isn't, although "controversial" was not what I addressed in my post. Just because a few kooks don't believe it, or the moon landing, doesn't make them any less valid.

The main controversy in the teaching of science, to me, is when it takes an atheistic, rather than an agnostic-ish, position.

[RightWingNilla]

OK students will not be allowed in college because their text books are going to state that evolution is a theory not a fact (which is the truth).

I don't know about getting into college, but they can forget about a career in science.

This textbook disclaimer nonsense if taken seriously automatically puts OK kids at a disadvantage.

[jayef]

I have faith and belief in God as well. I believe in the Living God and the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. What does that have to do with what we are talking about?

[jayef]

I bet none of them end up with Physics or Biology degrees!

[RightWingNilla]

The main controversy in the teaching of science, to me, is when it takes an atheistic, rather than an agnostic-ish, position.

What exactly is the difference? The subject of God is so far outside the scope of a high school science class I can't figure out why this is even a consideration.

[JohnnyZ]

I double-dog dare you to make that statement in any college level physics class.

Did you even read my post?

"the point is his rules aren't universally applicable"

I'm not going to quibble with you about what "disproven" can or cannot mean. Newton's theory is not universally applicable, though still very useful in normal situations. The intent of my post was clear, and if you want to ignore it, I'm not going to bandy words with you.

[JohnnyZ]

I suppose you think we should teach our children the creation myth and to not pretend it is inviolable

Fewer suppositions about what I believe, thanks. The Bible is not a science textbook.