The W
Views: 97806868
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.7.07 0627
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Evolution and public schools
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 3 Next(2032 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (41 total)
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst
Level: 49

Posts: 87/560
EXP: 880714
For next: 3175

Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 161 days
Last activity: 161 days
#1 Posted on 22.8.02 1235.44
Reposted on: 22.8.09 1237.42
Here's an interesting article on Fox news about a school with disclaimers in their textbooks regarding Evolution.

ACLU Sues Over Evolution Disclaimers in Textbooks

I know few people in the real world who give a damn either way about the subject so I'm curious what some fellow wieners feel across the country. Lately there are more areas popping up across America that would like to include theories of Intelligent Design along with the lessons on Evolution in science class. I'm a little surprised the ACLU got involved in this case. I'm not trying to start an argument of Evolution vs Intelligent Design but rather see how people feel about the subjects being taught in school and issues like the one pointed out in the article.
Promote this thread!
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 440/1084
EXP: 2417288
For next: 44576

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2902 days
Last activity: 2899 days
#2 Posted on 22.8.02 1304.39
Reposted on: 22.8.09 1313.05
I understand people's reservations about evolution, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be taught in school. While I understand the logic behind having a "counterpoint" of Intelligent Design, why is it only the Christian one? I mean, if we are going to offer a rebuttal to a scientific theory with faith, why does only one faith get taught?
DJ FrostyFreeze
Knackwurst
Level: 108

Posts: 540/3374
EXP: 13280327
For next: 240216

Since: 2.1.02
From: Hawthorne, CA

Since last post: 92 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#3 Posted on 22.8.02 1335.10
Reposted on: 22.8.09 1340.23
"This textbook contains material on evolution.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact,
regarding the origin of living things.
This material should be approached
with an open mind, studied carefully,
and critically considered."


I dont see the big deal. No one's saying evolution shouldnt be tought, and the label doesnt even mention any other theories/ideas.
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst
Level: 36

Posts: 37/259
EXP: 281669
For next: 26444

Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2459 days
Last activity: 562 days
#4 Posted on 22.8.02 1350.36
Reposted on: 22.8.09 1353.27
Sure, evolution is a theory....but it is a theory with scads of supporting evidence, which was arrived at using the scientific method. While that doesn't mean that it is 100% true, evolution is more than suitable to be taught in SCIENCE class.

ID really doesn't have much backing it up. It comes down to a matter of faith, and as such could be taught in RELIGION classes.

Teaching ID as science, or evolution as a matter of faith, does a grave disservice to both science and religion.

edited for clarity

(edited by Mr. Heat Miser on 22.8.02 1451)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 208/4700
EXP: 21378003
For next: 458659

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1184 days
Last activity: 981 days
#5 Posted on 22.8.02 1407.34
Reposted on: 22.8.09 1408.36

    Originally posted by Mr. Heat Miser
    Sure, evolution is a theory....but it is a theory with scads of supporting evidence, which was arrived at using the scientific method. While that doesn't mean that it is 100% true, evolution is more than suitable to be taught in SCIENCE class.

    ID really doesn't have much backing it up. It comes down to a matter of faith, and as such could be taught in RELIGION classes.

    Teaching ID as science, or evolution as a matter of faith, does a grave disservice to both science and religion.

    edited for clarity

    (edited by Mr. Heat Miser on 22.8.02 1451)



Teaching either one as fact really gives disservice to the other one. Both could be right, yet both could be wrong. For example, I believe that evolution has(and is) occuring, but that there was a god to sort it all out in the beginning.

As for eviljon's comments about the Christian dogma, he is right to a certain extend. Most monotheistic religions share similar if not damn close to identical cration mythologies. Many religions of eastern Asian share such a belief(and pretty damn close at that) to the Christian creation myth. So it might be identified as a Christian creationsit theory, it's about the same thing you get from other religions.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 539/1180
EXP: 2744771
For next: 124987

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3390 days
Last activity: 3384 days
#6 Posted on 22.8.02 1428.20
Reposted on: 22.8.09 1429.03
First off, ID is not soly a Christian concept. True it does deal with "religious" concepts of a higher power or orienting force necessary for the origin of life, and yes many of its adherents are Christians of one stripe or another, but it does not say that the Bible is the guidebook for all reality, and it surely does not say that the earth is only 10,000 years old, a la the Christian young-earth creationists. So ID is not just a Christian idea. It is essentially a *secular* outgrowth of some creationist ideas.

Second, in my opinion, ID *does* have alot backing it up. I haven't read much from some of the major proponents (as far as their large works go; I have scanned many articles though) but from what I've seen on design theories in general, it seems to support the evidence a lot better than macroevolution does. Sure it may take "faith" in the end, but as IDers and anti-evolutionists would tell you, Darwinism takes just as much if not MORE faith to accept, because you have to believe that natural laws have the tremendous powers ascribed to them even when the evidence is scant. So I think we SHOULD see more teaching of ID as legitimate science and teaching of Darwinism as faith. At least then the playing field would even out. (Unless, of course, you play old-school Dana Scully and assume beforehand that "science" can ONLY be defined by naturalistic ideas and anything that smacks of religion or the supernatural must automatically be false by definition.)

DMC
Scott Summets
Sujuk
Level: 64

Posts: 283/1008
EXP: 2126691
For next: 87418

Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3820 days
Last activity: 3789 days
#7 Posted on 22.8.02 1438.40
Reposted on: 22.8.09 1439.36
What's similar is that almost every religion has a Noah's Ark type story. Using the scientific vs religion argument you could say that when humanity was forming, glaciers and the like melted causing flooding, people didn't know the flooding's cause so they interepreted it to be from a god of some sort, or you could say that God was angry and flooded the world, or Zues was angry and flooded the world, or that Odin cleansed the world in a huge flood of blood, etc. etc.
DJ FrostyFreeze
Knackwurst
Level: 108

Posts: 543/3374
EXP: 13280327
For next: 240216

Since: 2.1.02
From: Hawthorne, CA

Since last post: 92 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#8 Posted on 22.8.02 1539.51
Reposted on: 22.8.09 1547.45
I've never heard the "Glaciers melting and flooding the earth" thing related/compared to Noah's ark before. Interresting.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 106

Posts: 683/3273
EXP: 12659130
For next: 12854

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 113 days
Last activity: 113 days
#9 Posted on 22.8.02 1603.42
Reposted on: 22.8.09 1607.01
I've thought of it before, but I'm not sure that the time frame is right. Maybe, maybe not. I've never really been interested enough to go find out.

-Jag
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst
Level: 49

Posts: 89/560
EXP: 880714
For next: 3175

Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 161 days
Last activity: 161 days
#10 Posted on 22.8.02 1604.16
Reposted on: 22.8.09 1608.08
Well as far as Noah's ark goes, the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys flood every year, or at least used to flood every year. That's why the area was called the fertile crescent and one reason it's the earliest site of human civilization (by civilization I mean society with written language among other things). I've an essay in a book at home (from an english class no less) that talks about the flood and how the jewish myth is based on a babylonian myth which is based on a sumerian myth (could be other way around, I forget if the sumerians were after the babylonians). anyway the oldest myth describes a man who was a friend to one of the gods and was warned ahead of time that the gods were gonna kill everyone with a flood and he was able to get his family to safety. The essay also describes how a man in a primitive society who was able to save his family from a larger than normal flood could be considered favored of the gods by his primitive peers and thus a myth/legend is born. The author of the essay was an archaelogist doing digs in the fertile crescent. If anyone cares I could write a more accurate synopsis of the essay. It's pretty interesting. The author was doing a dig and found evidence of a HUGE flood. But obviously not one that could cover the entire earth.
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst
Level: 36

Posts: 38/259
EXP: 281669
For next: 26444

Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2459 days
Last activity: 562 days
#11 Posted on 22.8.02 1604.22
Reposted on: 22.8.09 1608.49
OK, the html screwed me up on the quote - but Grimis says a couple of posts up that he believes in evolution as a process, but that God started things off.

See, that's faith right there. You can't teach that as science, because it isn't.

Please note, I'm not talking about fact, but about science. One doesn't equal the other.

I'll come back and edit this post to include some links to articles dealing w/ ID, to back up my assertion that there isn't much to it, as far as the science goes.

We don't teach all theories, only ones with enough evidence backing them up to be possible/plausible. Otherwise, we could demand that the schools teach that the entire universe was sneezed from the nose of The Great Green Arklseizure. Because, y'know, it's a theory.

(edited by Mr. Heat Miser on 22.8.02 1709)

This isn't the one I had in mind, but it's a good start:
http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html



(edited by Mr. Heat Miser on 22.8.02 1717)
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 540/1180
EXP: 2744771
For next: 124987

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3390 days
Last activity: 3384 days
#12 Posted on 22.8.02 1650.11
Reposted on: 22.8.09 1651.23
"OK, the html screwed me up on the quote - but Grimis says a couple of posts up that he believes in evolution as a process, but that God started things off.

See, that's faith right there. You can't teach that as science, because it isn't."

Therein lies the problem. Why isn't it? WHY define science in such a way that it excludes certain possibilities (that the beginning of life requires a transcendent intelligent designer) before the evidence is viewed? Do you believe in some kind of outdated logical positivism which says that we can only accept things that we can stick into test-tubes and physically measure as true (which would seem to rule out all the immaterial laws of logic, for example)? If not, then why must "science" be defined in such a narrow way? Shouldn't science or any other investigation into a question or mystery be open to ALL possibilities and then judge which one is true based on the evidence? (If there WAS evidence for "The Great Green Arklseizure," shouldn't it at least be heard?)

Needless-to-say, a thorough dicussion of the evidence for ID versus evolution should probably not clog up this thread, and since I am not for simply posting web links, I would gladly take up the topic in private messages with whomever wishes.

DMC

(edited by DMC on 22.8.02 1454)
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 442/1084
EXP: 2417288
For next: 44576

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2902 days
Last activity: 2899 days
#13 Posted on 22.8.02 1712.36
Reposted on: 22.8.09 1713.38
"Do you believe in some kind of outdated logical positivism which says that we can only accept things that we can stick into test-tubes and physically measure as true (which would seem to rule out all the immaterial laws of logic, for example)?"

Isn't that why the theory of evolution is criticised?
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 58/1759
EXP: 4882714
For next: 110156

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1230 days
Last activity: 29 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on 22.8.02 1733.05
Reposted on: 22.8.09 1733.18
People seem to misinterpret the "Theory of Evolution" as theology, when it is not. Darwin himself was a Christian. The basic premise of evolution is a sound one- members of a species with a certain trait will have greater success mating than others, and over generations that trait will become more dominate. How is that against "God?" That basic premise has been proven time and time again. It is the idea that all things evolved from a single cell thousands of years ago that many people believe conflicts with religion, and THAT may not necessarily be the case.
The Bible (to take the judeo-Christian standpoint) says that God created the heavens and the Earth in 7 days. This is clearly metaphorical. On each "day" he accomplishes a great work. Most Christians (in reference to other things) believe that a "day" to God is not the same as a "day" to us. How do you know that it did not take God thousands of years to eventually make man? He is supposed to be infinite. He could afford to take his time.
And the whole idea that evolution is blasphemy is kind of obscene. How do you knoe that Evolution was not the tool God used to eventually create man?
The whole one-or-the-other mentality is so rediculous. Science and Religion are different. Science tries to figure out how the universe worked. Religion teaches you how to lead a moral lifem and sometimes with how a higher power created the Universe. No matter how far back science goes in explaining the supposed orgin of things, there is still the infinity beyond it that we cannot comprehend. THAT is God...
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 541/1180
EXP: 2744771
For next: 124987

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3390 days
Last activity: 3384 days
#15 Posted on 22.8.02 1756.46
Reposted on: 22.8.09 1759.02
"People seem to misinterpret the "Theory of Evolution" as theology, when it is not. Darwin himself was a Christian. The basic premise of evolution is a sound one- members of a species with a certain trait will have greater success mating than others, and over generations that trait will become more dominate. How is that against "God?" That basic premise has been proven time and time again. It is the idea that all things evolved from a single cell thousands of years ago that many people believe conflicts with religion, and THAT may not necessarily be the case."

It certaintly does conflict with a religion which says that an intelligent, all-powerful being had a personal hand in creating life, that things did not just pop into existence out of nothing and form themselves randomly. And I agree that there is nothing "against God" with the first premise you mention. You are simply drawing the distinction between micro and macro evolution, which creationists often do. The first one we obviously see take place everyday, the second, we don't. We need *evidence* for the idea that macroevolution is "how God did it", and I just don't think we have it.

DMC
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 138

Posts: 1046/5995
EXP: 31535133
For next: 127927

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#16 Posted on 22.8.02 1841.53
Reposted on: 22.8.09 1847.03
DMC's main argument is that unless you have personally done the research yourself, then you are taking things (Science) on faith.

Therefore, he argues that ID is equivalent to Science because it is also based on faith.

You can argue this with him for hours, but in the end his argument will break down to this point, which is flawed.

Seriously, We have this argument every time we see each other in person and I present copious amounts of data to back up evolution, but he doesn't want to believe it and will quote ANY source which disagrees, no matter what amount of credibility they have.

It's a very frustrating argument, and I thought I would warn you all before this goes too far.

You have been warned. PS> Rich, I'm right and you are wrong. Thbbbbbbbbt.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 212/4700
EXP: 21378003
For next: 458659

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1184 days
Last activity: 981 days
#17 Posted on 23.8.02 0721.59
Reposted on: 23.8.09 0726.58

    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    DMC's main argument is that unless you have personally done the research yourself, then you are taking things (Science) on faith.

    Therefore, he argues that ID is equivalent to Science because it is also based on faith.

    You can argue this with him for hours, but in the end his argument will break down to this point, which is flawed.

    Seriously, We have this argument every time we see each other in person and I present copious amounts of data to back up evolution, but he doesn't want to believe it and will quote ANY source which disagrees, no matter what amount of credibility they have.

    It's a very frustrating argument, and I thought I would warn you all before this goes too far.

    You have been warned. PS> Rich, I'm right and you are wrong. Thbbbbbbbbt.



He does have a point though insofar as you have to have faith in the scienetists, their methods, formulas, variables, etc to accept the data. Maybe this is apples and oranges, but many scientists due question the aforementioned in peer reviews of developing research.

Additionally, things that were taken as scientific fact 500+ years ago(such as the earth being flat) were taken as such without any proof. Thus the fact was taken on faith...
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 130

Posts: 805/5186
EXP: 25306477
For next: 424169

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 3 hours
#18 Posted on 23.8.02 0743.50
Reposted on: 23.8.09 0753.44

    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by Guru Zim
      DMC's main argument is that unless you have personally done the research yourself, then you are taking things (Science) on faith.

      Therefore, he argues that ID is equivalent to Science because it is also based on faith.

      You can argue this with him for hours, but in the end his argument will break down to this point, which is flawed.

      Seriously, We have this argument every time we see each other in person and I present copious amounts of data to back up evolution, but he doesn't want to believe it and will quote ANY source which disagrees, no matter what amount of credibility they have.

      It's a very frustrating argument, and I thought I would warn you all before this goes too far.

      You have been warned. PS> Rich, I'm right and you are wrong. Thbbbbbbbbt.



    He does have a point though insofar as you have to have faith in the scienetists, their methods, formulas, variables, etc to accept the data. Maybe this is apples and oranges, but many scientists due question the aforementioned in peer reviews of developing research.

    Additionally, things that were taken as scientific fact 500+ years ago(such as the earth being flat) were taken as such without any proof. Thus the fact was taken on faith...



but the main difference between scientific faith and religous faith, is well, one has to do with religion, and their whole argument is that religion has no part in a public school...

but your point is a very valid one...
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst
Level: 36

Posts: 39/259
EXP: 281669
For next: 26444

Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2459 days
Last activity: 562 days
#19 Posted on 23.8.02 0951.36
Reposted on: 23.8.09 0959.09

    Originally posted by rikidozan

      Originally posted by Grimis

        Originally posted by Guru Zim
        DMC's main argument is that unless you have personally done the research yourself, then you are taking things (Science) on faith.

        Therefore, he argues that ID is equivalent to Science because it is also based on faith.

        You can argue this with him for hours, but in the end his argument will break down to this point, which is flawed.

        Seriously, We have this argument every time we see each other in person and I present copious amounts of data to back up evolution, but he doesn't want to believe it and will quote ANY source which disagrees, no matter what amount of credibility they have.

        It's a very frustrating argument, and I thought I would warn you all before this goes too far.

        You have been warned. PS> Rich, I'm right and you are wrong. Thbbbbbbbbt.



      He does have a point though insofar as you have to have faith in the scienetists, their methods, formulas, variables, etc to accept the data. Maybe this is apples and oranges, but many scientists due question the aforementioned in peer reviews of developing research.

      Additionally, things that were taken as scientific fact 500+ years ago(such as the earth being flat) were taken as such without any proof. Thus the fact was taken on faith...



    but the main difference between scientific faith and religous faith, is well, one has to do with religion, and their whole argument is that religion has no part in a public school...

    but your point is a very valid one...



I agree with all of this, and just want to add one point on the scientific faith vs. religious faith.
Science involves things that are able to be proved wrong. (ie falsifiability). Sure scientists have faith in a theory until it is proven incorrect, but the point is that they are willing to accept that they CAN be proven incorrect.
Religion regards things that can't be proved wrong. No one can disprove the existence of God, or reincarnation, or any other religious principal. (At the most one could say there is no evidence; that doesn't disprove anything) This is why they don't qualify as science. ID, as outlined in the article I posted the link for above, is ultimately unfalsifiable - that's why it doesn't belong in the science classroom, except as an example of something unfalsifiable.

Now I'm going to heed Guru Zim's warning and go away.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 542/1180
EXP: 2744771
For next: 124987

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3390 days
Last activity: 3384 days
#20 Posted on 23.8.02 1138.02
Reposted on: 23.8.09 1141.40
"DMC's main argument is that unless you have personally done the research yourself, then you are taking things (Science) on faith.

Therefore, he argues that ID is equivalent to Science because it is also based on faith."

That is a misrepresentation of what I believe Aaron and you know it. When did I say that you have to personally have done research yourself in order to accept certain facts? The evolutionists have done research, and I still disagree with them, and believe they are largely basing their theories on faith. So this has nothing to do with anything I've said, so nice try. Thbbbbbbbbt!

As far as copious amounts of data you have presented me, I'm still waiting to hear it. And I'm still waiting for you to respond to Phillip Johnson's *Darwin on Trial*, the single best critique of evolution ever written.

DMC

(edited by DMC on 23.8.02 0938)
Pages: 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: Cartoons!
Next thread: Interesting quote...
Previous thread: Peer to Peer users beware of the DOJ
(2032 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Evolution and public schoolsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.213 seconds.