** Badtz Maru** even if your just sticking to biogenesis i see no justification for bringing ID into the classroom. No hypotheses that provides no evidence should be brought into the classroom otherwise all hypotheses must be allowed.
Parents should not be allowed to create custom course loads for their kids in public schools. If they don’t like the fact that schools present true, honest, factual science instead of meaningless religious mumbo-jumbo, then they should home school their kids, to be sure little Timmy’s Dark Ages world view isn’t corrupted by the big, mean people who know the facts.
Intelligent Design is not science. There is NO evidence supporting it, therefore it cannot be taught in a science class, unless you then teach EVERYTHING ELSE that also has NO evidence to support it. Such would be nonsense.
I would have no problem with kids taking a course on religious myths and beliefs, that runs a year and presents the plain facts beliefs of the major world religions. I believe knowing the basic tenets of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc, are just as important for being a fully-formed member of society as knowing the basic tenets of biology, physics and geometry. Most people won’t use any of it, but knowing it makes you more capable to deal with other problems and cultures that stem from similar mileus.
Take the creationism nonsense and put it in the World Religion course. Save the science class for actual science.
Someone said that the 20% who are undecided are just plain ignorant. IMO, the 60% who dont realize the truth behind evolution are plain ignorant. Look, if you’re going to start a crusade against science then do it in the open and start attacking the Theory of Gravity, Atomic Theory, and the Theory of Evolution all at the same time. If those of you out there can successfully disprove Atomic Theory and The Theory of Gravity, then maybe you can talk about Evolution, because there is a hell of a lot more evidence for Evolution than there is for gravity. We cant even begin to describe the intracacies of gravity, muchless how it occurs or why.
Anyways, students should not be exposed to religion in a science classroom. That is just asking for a backlash by the ACLU, and by the leftists. If anything, we should spend our time educating those of the masses who believe in the nonsense that the Evangelists eschew as facts. If we can cut out their support base, this whole debacle will vanish into the evolution of mankind. Evolution must be taught as it stands. As a truth of the world. Who can honestly preach that microevolution has no scientific basis?
Science and religion must always be kept as separate as possible… or else we face a second wave of Inquisitions…
i agree with that, if they took an alternative to the classes the school wants it should show up as what they took, not what the school had. i apologize if it came off as i meant an alternate course should appear as a standard one. differing views of orgins are one aspect of how this would be used. i have this view becouse parents and teachers sometimes disagree about the best teaching methodes. whole word vs pheonetics to teach reading for example. however i am going to stop now as i am going away from the scope of the thread. have a nice day
really? i hate to move from the scope of the thread but, how does evolution explain aging? clearly the longer lived an animel is the chances it will have to reproduce.
on second thought strike that. this is obviosely a troll. i would who ever like to know explanation evolutionist have. i will post this in general questions.
There is no reason that long life would be helpful in terms of evolution. As far as evolution is concerned, all that matters is the furthering of one’s genetic material. After the first child or litter is born, the life of the parent, evolutionarily, is fairly meaningless. Your genes have already been recombined and propogated, your “evolutionary” duty is complete.
In evolutionary terms, animals with short lives who reproduce quickly and give birth to large numbers of offspring at one time are more capable of mass genetic propogation and rapid mutation to adapt to potentially changing surroundings. More complex life forms, like humans, take longer to get to the reproductive stage (12 years), but the basic end is the same.
At least, that’s from my understanding of evolution. Someone who actually studies biology could probably pull all that apart. That’s part of why I’m a film major. Science and I have only a passing acquaintance. But everyone should at least have such a passing acquaintance, and should be required to study such in school.
Moderator’s Note: Please remember that accusations of trolling should not be made in public.
I don’t think YOU understand science very well. First of all, science does have grand ambitions for explaining everything that can be explained, but that’s hardly the point. The problem with even your version of ID is not that it doesn’t explain where Bob came from, but it doesn’t explain what Bob is or, even more important how Bob does what Bob is suggested to have done. In short, ID lacks a mechanism. The whole POINT of most scientific theories of abiogenesis is that they give some explanation, some process that we can understand and test. That’s what it means, after all to “explain” something.
If the hypothesis is “some smart dude did it” the question remains: how? Did he have really tiny hands and put the molecules together? Did he stir it up in a pot? Use mind waves to assemble the parts? Did he diagram it out first? All of this, the core of it, the science of HOW it happened: all of it is currently baseless, untestable speculation: none of it is working with evidence. Abiogenesis at least tries to play by the rules: guess the conditions of the early earth, guess what reactions and processes were active, see what “rachets” exist that we were unaware of that incline certain things over others. Designer speculation is scientifically baseless precisely because we aren’t playing with any of these things, trying to get results out of some initial state.
I agree: which is why theories sans evidence or even theoretical testability don’t belong in science classes yet.
This doesnt really have to do with the main discussion but this isnt quite true. For one thing parent animals can obviously further propagate passing on different genetic material, (after all you only pass on 50% of your gentic material each pop). Even after the point where an animal can not procreate they can still serve a useful purpose in protecting their offspring and of course different species favour different reproductive strategies.
I’ll bow to your superior knowledge on the subject. All I know is that all the evidence I’ve seen, including evidence from “Creationists” supports the clear fact of evolution.
It would seem to me that the whole point of life, at the most abstract, is to pass on one’s genetic make up (or aid in the preservation of one’s species in another manner). I won’t pretend to truly understand the mechanisms or even more complicated theories behind evolution, or cultural formation. I do know enough to not be duped into buying Intelligent Design or Young Earth Creationism, or whatever the religious folk are trying to push into our schools these days.
Heathen! It’s a biblically proven fact that the Earth is square!
AFAIK aging which is the result of our cells only being able to reproduce themselves a limited number of times is a defense against cancer. (I may be wrong)