Posted on 08/31/2006 7:42:01 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
"A circle is not an ellipse!"
"1^720" is a really big number
"..... infrared light causes sunburn...."
I'm suggesting it's rude and confusing to teach a subject that the parents of nhearly half the class don't believe in, without acknowledging those beliefs.
I see you on these threads all the time, so I know you find this subject fascinating to debate. I bet you learn a lot about both the subject, and your fellow citizens from such discussion and debate. Let the kids do the same.
It really does not need to be not all that complicated.
Really?
Let's compile a quick list of fallacious or unsupported concepts that have multiple points of view in the world.:
* Alien Abductions are occuring with frightening regularity.
* Moon Landing? Hollywood trickery!
*Your personality and the quality of your life are determined by the position of Jupiter and Mars at the moment of your birth.
*A living Plesiosaur resides in a lake in modern-day Scotland.
*And don't get me started on the "so-called Holocaust"
Teach the controversy? No. Teach the best available facts.
"I know many deeply religious people who believe that evolution is compatible with religion."
I am one of them. I think it is completely possible that God made evolution happen. I wasn't there, but more and more scientists are coming around to this view when they discover the beauty of the universe in all its compexity. I don't know about the ape thing, but I pretty sure man is not just 4-5000 years old. So lets allow the teaching of religion in tax-payer financed schools. What is so scary about that?
" I didn't evolve from apes." - perfectly correct. You haven't.
I do think that niceosity is a perfectly cromulent word..so I would have to say I fall into the first category...
Jul. 2006 |
Jul. 2005 |
|
Believe that 51% = most... |
51% |
48% |
believe 51% is not 'most' |
42% |
42% |
Was never very good with statistics |
7% |
10% |
Niceosity placemarker..
I'm pretty sure I discussed many of those subjects in classrooms of my youth. Some in high school, some in college.
Pretty interesting discussions, too :~)
I take a few different things from that comment myself.
I suppose now that "most" means a whole lot more than what "most" should mean according to folks who do not know what the original word "most" meant.
"Most" means something more than 51%, but something more than just 51%!
"Existed in their present form
since the beginning of time"
Stupidly phrased question.
Nobody believes this; even the Biblical account of creation doesn't teach this.
"In the beginning was the Word..."
but man wasn't created until at least the 6th day so the clock was already running.
After watching Georgie Soros' "DemocRATS" and their IslamoFascist pals over the past 6 years, I really believe that "reverse evolution" has begun. The IslamoFascists have already moved back into the caves. I don't think the DemocRATS will be far behind. I'm also convinced that "reverse evolution" occurs when you no longer use your brain. That explains why the DemocRATS are showing the first signs of "reverse evolution." They are also starting to congregate into different tribes again. Survivor is going to do a show about it.
"You haven't."
I "haven't" what?
Mickie Most
I see you on these threads all the time, so I know you find this subject fascinating to debate. I bet you learn a lot about both the subject, and your fellow citizens from such discussion and debate. Let the kids do the same.
It really does not need to be not all that complicated.
Not, it is not complicated. Science operates under a particular set of rules, the scientific method. These (in short) define what science studies and how it studies it. So how would you like science to "acknowledge those beliefs?" As superstition? Myth? As being unsupported by science? Do you want a full evaluation, as occurs in science, of, say, the stories of a global flood or the tower of Babel? I would guess that you would not be happy with the result.
To be true to its methods, science would have to say that there is no scientific evidence for creationism and ID. Is that what you want? You want science to detail various religious beliefs and then say that there is no scientific evidence for those beliefs?
Perhaps it is better to leave well enough alone.
Polls are meaningless, unless your side is ahead, so I think this one is significant. Note the change of 3% to our side since last year. It's time to celebrate and throw an evilutionist party, as if we needed a reason.
We just did a few weeks ago, or did you pass out for the duration of the Conclave?
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.