I too accept evolution as both a theory and a fact, as long as one is careful about the definition of the word “theory.” By “theory,” I mean the most plausible explanation of observed and verified facts, not “one explanation that’s just as valid as any other.”
Therefore, I can’t be tolerant and accepting of the dumbing down of education to satsify those who believe something clearly contradictory to fact. It’s simply wrong to teach children things that are demonstrably not true and call it science.
And, if the subject of evolution somehow were to come up in a debate with a believer in “creation science” or whatever they’re calling it now, I have no obligation whatsoever to respect or tolerate the beliefs of that person. And I have an affirmative obligation to try and prevent that person from teaching their drivel as fact, or science, in the public schools of this nation.
I suppose they can do what they like in religious schools, but I don’t have to like it.
For the record, I’m a practising Catholic, went to Catholic schools (and good ones, at that) most of my life, and was taught about evolution starting in grammar school. I can’t remember exactly when we began hearing about it, but certainly by fifth or sixth grade, we began to grasp the concept.
Ahhhh, one more shining example of the “great wisdom” of the far religious right and the geniuses that support or follow them without question. At least, some people in Jesusland are not blaming the godless Democrat blue states for this. It looks like some of them know where to put the blame. It gives me hope that the hinterlands is not completely hopeless.
Perhaps because those who believe otherwise are not treating us respectfully. Those who believe otherwise are trying to force our children’s science textbooks to treat theology as science. Those who believe otherwise are trying hobble the science education of all students. That I do not respect and I see no reason why I should do so.
I respect the faiths of others enough to recognize that I am not infallible, and that my beliefs concerning the creation of the universe and the afterlife may not be shared by others. I respect the faiths of others enough to respect the role of religion in its own sphere, just as I respect the role of science in its sphere. But they do not. They have decided that it is not enough to hold their own beliefs in their hearts and minds. They have decided that science must be subordinate to their beliefs.
Hell, no. I will not concede that creationism is a “science”, or that it has any place in a science class or a science textbook, your own nagging demands for liberal “civility” be damned. I praise the Catholic school system for teaching science in a science class. And I praise those residents of Georgia who recognize that science is not a matter of faith. But don’t expect me to bow down and scrape before the judgemental zealots who are trying to use our children’s textbooks to further their own disrespect for any beliefs that they don’t share.
Can’t resist an opportunity to take another shot at Democrats, huh?
At any rate, I’d be happy to leave them alone if they were willing to leave evolution alone. But they aren’t. They’re packaging this as diversity and tolerance, when that’s the last thing they want. They’re calling themselves open minded. Don’t buy it. They have a transparent agenda to present their own mythical view of the world as fact and shut out all others. Just because I’m a Blue doesn’t mean I have to respect that.
Hi Bricker, welcome to the Pit. Pit, Bricker; Bricker, Pit.
Now as for your red herring, the theory of evolution is not a part of the platform of the Democratic Party, nor of the Republican Party, so this has nothing to do with Red state/ Blue state nonsense.
As for the politeness of responses, I remind you again that this is the Pit, not GD. In addition, tolerance for diversity of opinion doesn’t really apply here; that evolutions happens is an established fact. Then there is justifiable annoyance at persistent, willful ignorance, which again is being aired here in the appropriate forum.
Creationism is a fraud, a deliberate attempt to insert religious dogma (which BTW has been shown to have no basis in fact) into the public schools.
Should we tolerate attempts to have astrology taught in science classes? The Ptolemaic theory of a solar system in which the planets and Sun circle the earth in concentric, crystalline spheres? How about teaching alchemy in chemistry class?
Sure, there are disgreements among scientists on the mechanisms and pace of evolution, but there is no doubt whatsoever of the validity of the basic idea. To assert that the truth of evolution is something about wich reasonable people might disagree is simply wrong.
Nail. Head. Hit. It isn’t about what must be done to put evolution (or science generally, for that matter) in it’s proper place, but rather a question of how many times creationism, its variants and its same old arguments must be refuted.
There are many ways to comply with friend Bricker’s admonition that we learn to be more tolerant of ignorance and bigotry. There are avenues of thought opening up here. For instance, the possibility is offered that AIDS is the vengeance of an angry God, who wishes to kill some of his children because he built them wrong. We might well consider what steps to take to propitiate and mollify the Deity.
A sacrifice, mayhaps? Our Leader shows stern resolve when it comes to sacrificing other people’s kids, I have no doubt he would be swift to offer up the twins, Biblical precendent, and all that. Virgin sacrifice has long been held to be optimal in matters of … What? Surely you cannot doubt it? The twins are U Tex girls, whose rigid and unyielding virtue is the stuff of legend…
Well, it depends. I have no problem being respectful of the beliefs of devout Christians. As I’ve said before, all religious beliefs seem strange to me, so I don’t see a huge difference between believing Jesus is the Son of God and believing in a literal 7-day creation. But… when those beliefs are forced into the public school curriculum, respect does not play a part. Creationism simply should not be taught in public schools any more than the resurrection of Christ should be. If parents want their kids to learn about creationism, send the kids to private schools. I support vouchers, too, so there would be a mechanism to avoid the finacial impossibility of doing so for those who can’t otherwise afford it.
Still, there is no need to ridicule the beliefs, only to point out that they are just that-- beliefs, and not science.
In defense of Bricker, he didn’t bring up Red State/Blue State policy. The OP did. Explicitly.
Evolution/Creationism isn’t necessarily part of the parties’ platforms but there are some vocal proponents in the Republican party that are pushing for creationism or at least trying to creak that door open a bit. Rick Santorum tried to attach a part to the No Child Left Behind act
Well, I don’t know about Santorum’s intent, but from the phrasing, I agree with him, up to a point. I could see spending at least one class period teaching about the controversy and why the subject upsets people. Creationism ought to be addressed, if only to explain how it fails as science and why it has no place in a science class.
I assume you have the utmost respect, then, for my belief that all lawyers are in fact alien reptile monsters from the planet Neptune who secretly eat human babies. Furthermore, this should be taught in Civics classes. The idea that lawyers are actually humans should be presented with the rider that it is theory, and the reptile monster story should be presented as a viable alternative.
I mean, it’s just that I have a different belief, and you respect that, right?
Of course. As a theory, evolution is a continually evolving (heh) model that most accurately accounts for observed facts.
Yes, I agree it’s wrong. But that doesn’t mean that the proponents must be called idiots. They are simply mistaken. I can refuse to accept their error, and insist that science as taught in school accurately reflect the truth, without stooping to personal insult, can’t I?
Either that or you have an amazingly high tolerance for people who willfully break the law. Or is this another of those SCOTUS decisions that you decry as some sort of violation of proper process?
The belief is without merit, and I have no particular respect for it.
That doesn’t mean I need to call you an idiot. I can treat you respectfully, while at the same time pointing out that your theory is utterly without basis in fact, and your plan for teaching it ungrounded in any sound policy.
The belief would be called a hypothesis, not a theory, since a theory is a hypothesis that has some experimental evidence to back it up. This is at the heart of the whole “it’s just a theory” debate. The religious folks are confusing “theory” with “hypothesis”. If evolutions by natural selection were a hypothesis without any experimental evidence to back it up, they would be right.
I’m not picking on you, Otto, splease don’t be upset, but that is one of the misconceptions about evolution that drives me nuts. There is no predetermined goal or target toward which organisms strive, so there is no such thing as being “more evolved.” The frequency of genes in a population alters in response to enviromental pressures, among other causes, and has no predetermined purpose. Humans, for example, are not “more evolved” than, say, chimpanzees–we are adapted to our environment and chimpanzees are adapted to theirs.
Why? Galileo was a long time ago; the current Church is quite comfortable with science, aside from a couple of applications like cloning. True, in the US the Catholic Church has recently become a subsidiary of one political party, so I guess I can understand why you’d think that. However, creationism is almost entirely limited to American Protestants. The rest of the world just rolls their eyes. :rolleyes: