[Glenn]

students often arrive at school fearing that evolution, and perhaps science itself, is hostile to their faith.

Well, too bad! I have a sister-in-law that believes your child will be marked if you play cards when you are pregnant. I sort of believe her faith is misguided.

[From many - one.]

It’s really very simple. If a student signs up to take a course in biology, that student is there to learn what biologists think.

Any dispruptive behavior is cheating the other students of what they came for. Tuning out means only cheating oneself of learning the basics, even if only to better oppose it later when educated and knowledgable.

[GodGunsGuts]

I don’t know about you guys, but I’m tired of laying down for this stuff. I think it’s time we get in the face of the Evos, and not to back down until they are completely crushed politically. We have enough people on our side to squish these losers like a political bug. If they want to FORCE this crap down our childrens throats, then I say we stop arguing with them and give them a taste of their own medicine!

[ari-freedom]

another reason to homeschool

[guitarplayer1953]

Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher about Evolution

ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth — when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor — thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry — a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry — even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds — even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection — when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection — even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution — even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident — when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact — even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

Any Evols want to answer these questions?

[Prole]

The freaking idiots at the NYT fail to recognize that Science and Theology co-exist.

Science explains how we got here.

Theology explains WHY we are here.

[rawcatslyentist]

a dozen other states have also given more emphasis in recent years to what has long been the scientific consensus

Consensus? Or Belief/Faith in mans designs.

Does right or wrong depend on the number of people whom believe it?

A lot of people believe homosexuality is good, a lot of people believe isLame is good, a lot of people believed Adolph was good.

Even in a minority of ONE, the Truth is still the Truth.~M. Ghandi

[Disambiguator]

We had this argument in Rio Rancho, NM, a few years back.

Here is a little background.

The actual policy is written to allow discussion in the classroom, which apparently wasn't the case prior to the policy's enactment.

I was at the school board meeting where this was "discussed," and it's a good thing we had a large, off-duty LEO present (along with some uniformed officers, as the meeting place was right across the street from the PD HQ).

[metmom]

But in a nation where evangelical Protestantism and other religious traditions stress a literal reading of the biblical description of God’s individually creating each species, students often arrive at school fearing that evolution, and perhaps science itself, is hostile to their faith.

She's been drinking evo kool-aid. Talking points right out of the play book.

[aposiopetic]

Ping. You may have been pinged already, and, if so, please disregard this supernumerary ping.

[Non-Sequitur]

Some come armed with “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” a document circulated on the Internet that highlights supposed weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Others scrawl their opposition on homework assignments. Many just tune out.

That's why God invented "D's" and "F's".

[aposiopetic]

Many of the students, Mr. Campbell sensed, were not grasping the basic principles of biological evolution.

I am sure Mr. Campbell was trying very hard to get the students to grasp those principles. But is it possible that by continuing to desire that the students direct their attention to macroevolutionary conclusions he risked underteaching the principles of mutation and microevolution? Paleontology and comparative embryology may have visual appeal but biochemical and population genetics give entry-level students a more solid foundation to build on, accrediting and other political organizations' recommendations notwithstanding.

[The_Repugnant_Conservative]

Which results in the better tool?

For we are talking about science and the purpose of Science is to develop tools to make our world better. Which Flu vaccines should be made this year? How will we treat various Cancers in 5 years? etc. What may or may not of happened thousands of years ago is a Philosophical debate.