Results 1 to 13 of 81
Thread: Teaching evolution
12-15-2007, 11:16 AM #1
I got in a argument with the lady again, this time she pointed out some republican candidate that wants to continue the battle for getting rid of the theory of evolution in schools.
I agree, If we are going to force our kids in to a public school and say that we cant teach about creation than I don't think it is fair to teach about evolution either.
Both are in my opinion are a form of religion and for one side to say the other is wrong and should not be taught, is crazy.
now private school is different if you can afford to send your kid to a school that teaches what you want them to learn that is great. But for the majority of the working class who cant afford to, they shouldn't be forced to learn something there beliefs don't agree with.
Don't get confused like she did, I am not saying teach creation, just don't teach either one.
Where do you stand??I hope life isnt a big joke, because I dont get it.
What I don't Know Far out weighs what I do.
VETO PRO PAC, The Official Tool Bag of HVAC-Talk.com
12-15-2007, 11:37 AM #2
i agree. both are theories so if both are controversial, both should be taught or nether one should be taught. and as far as im concerned the parents should be able to choose if it should be taught or which one if not both should be taught to there siblingsI dont warranty Tinkeritus
12-15-2007, 11:40 AM #3
This is another issue that, like global warming has, become political and taken on a life of it's own. Evo has also been hijacked by the anti-religionists to try and disprove the belief that there is an almighty God.
That is where my problem with the whole issue is, that the two issues have been thrown into conflict with each other. I am very supportive of science, but they should stick to the facts and not try to pursue an agenda of discrediting believers. Similarly, certain members of the religious community should stop with the "God snapped his fingers and created man and to try and explain that through science is wrong" attitude.
It's been awhile since I reviewed the evo information that is being taught in public schools. I do recall that I had some issues with it, and that I had read some articles that indicated there are some thermodynamic theories that conflict with the theory of evo. As with many of the things taught in public schools today, there is likely some agenda put in from one a the various radical groups that seem to have hijacked public education.
The best thing parents can do these days is either closely watch what their kid is being taught, or out them in private school.
FWIW...I'm a conservative Christian, but not one that automatically accepts anything told to me by a religious leader as fact. I realize that there is extremism on both sides so I search for the facts and derive my own answers.
12-15-2007, 02:56 PM #4Professional Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
Won't matter,they won't remember anything anyhow.Just another day in Paradise.
12-15-2007, 04:39 PM #5
Evolution and the laws of thermodynamics are quite compatible. I recall reading some goofball diatribe stating that the Second Law would prohibit evolution. Some folks simply don't understand thermodynamics.
The real problem, as k_fridge alludes, are proponents who stretch evolution to explain everything, including eliminating the need for a creator.
12-16-2007, 01:45 AM #6
Last Saturday morning, my daughter scored the game winner in her soccer match. That same afternoon she nailed Frosty the Snowman on the piano at the Chrsitmas concert.
Tomorrow, I am taking her to Sunday School , she can learn about God.
Monday I take her to school, she can learn evolution.
It's all about balance.Trust me, I know what I'm doing.
12-16-2007, 07:13 AM #7Professional Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- Eastern Washington
First of, get rid of the worthless NEA, and their state equivelants. Just because some moron got a degree to prove he can memorize the thoughts of someone else, doesn't mean he is a teacher. Once the NEA is out of the picture, we can start canning the bad teachers, and they can go find something they are good at. Once we have teachers that can actually teach objectively, I say let them teach all the theories they want--objectively.
Let the kids know that the scientific theory of origins changes regularly, that they believe that, in the beginning rock...
Let them know the Christian Bible says, "In the beginning, God..."
Let's stop sneaking up on them with indoctrination, just give them all the claims and let them make an intelligent decision. Give them the whole picture of each model to think about,TB
Everyone knows something I don't.
2 Chronicles 7:14
14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
12-16-2007, 10:09 AM #8
Well, the only issue with the OP is that evolution is not JUST a theory. In fact, NOTHING in science is "only a theory".
For example; K-Fridge points out the controversy surrounding Global Warming. Please keep in mind what the controversy IS. It is over HOW it occured, not whether GW exists in the first place.
Next example; gravity. Einstien changed what Newton said about how gravity worked. But, nothing at all happened to gravity when that occurred. Apples still fell to the ground. That gravity exists is a fact, no matter what happens to the theory or explanation.
Evolution. That it occurred is a FACT. Just like in ALL science, as I have shown above, poking a hole in the theory of how something works DOES NOT MEAN that the phenomena does not exist. This is quite a common thing, I must say, and THAT is the EXACT reason why you don't introduce philosophy (like creation or ID) in to a science class. Unless your kids get a great science educations, then *they* will be the ones who can't understand what a theory is or its relationship to facts, just like some of you. They will also be the ones completely buffaloed by consensus science as we see running rampant today.
Attacking a theory does NOTHING to change an observation. That's what ALL science begins with... like an apple falling to the ground. Even if we NEVER completely explain gravity, apples will continue to fall to the ground!
We have an observation that needs explaining. Simple forms of life were here before WE were, but NOW we are. It's pretty much as simple as that. Now, if you want to say that God waved his hand and cause each change, be my guest. That would not be scientific, though, because you have no test to demonstrate that is so. Since testing is the hallmark of science, God and philosophy will NEVER be considered.
Pretty hard to NOT teach it. Especially since evolution is the BASIS for all biological and medical sciences."Social networking" is an oxymoron.
12-16-2007, 10:21 AM #9including eliminating the need for a creator.
What evolution conflicts with is a literal interpretation of Genesis... not God. Just one more little factoid that demonstrates that the bible was 100% conceived, written and inspired by men."Social networking" is an oxymoron.
12-16-2007, 11:26 AM #10
12-16-2007, 12:02 PM #11
I have a rather simplistic view on this matter.
It basically goes like this:
God Created everything, once he/she got things going, evolution took over and things kind of run by themselves. God just sits back and watches what happensGOVERNMENT
The only parasite dumb enough to kill it's host
12-16-2007, 01:40 PM #12
Evolution is a theory; but the proper term would be scientific theory which is somewhat different than the commonly used term of theory. Below from Wikipedia...
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.
12-16-2007, 01:43 PM #13