Kansas votes to keep its children ignorant...

[JennyMominRI]

Creationism cannot ever be proven false, so it could never be a scientific theory, correct? Please, tell me, how can one prove that man evolved from a single celled organism (actually all life forms) be proven false? See, it can't be proven false either really, but the scientific community latches on to it like a leech. They conclude that it can in fact be proven false, but I think we can safely say that's not true.

Why is it, when you look back over history, our current population supports creationism? Our population would be how many times over if man stemmed back as far as evolution states?

One would think (I'd imagine) if all species evolved from one another (because they could) that it would be a very slow, gradual process? That's the whole concept of evolution, is it not? Well then, please do enlighten me on why there are no fossils for the in between species? I'd really like to know that one. While you're at it, why don't you point me to the direction that shows one type animal evolving into another? I don't mean a fish turning into another fish, or an ape turning into another ape, I'm more looking for a donkey turning into a bear.

You might want to think before you start calling people ignorant next time! MOO though Unless of course, you can answer all my questions?

Because that's not how evolution works..that's another myth.. Things don't evolve from Horse to dog.. Fish to cat..Man did NOT evolve from apes...That is not part of evolutionary theory..Man and Ape both have a common ancestor

 

[JennyMominRI]

Link (from a reputable source) that states the theory of evolution is a fact please? I'm not interesting in reading anyone's personal opinion in that link either.

Thank you very much!

That we and other animals evolve is a FACT.. How does the process work? We have pretty good scientific evidence to show how, but we don't have it 100 % worked out.. In how we evolved there is some room for debate..I have no issue with that debate happening in a classroom. That doesn't involve religion however..There is not one singe shred of evidence to prove that Creationism is true..There are no facts to back up a 6 day creation of Earth. In fact the evidence shows just the opposiet.
Gravity is also a theory..It will stay a theory until someone disproves it...That is how scientific method works...I'm honestly shocked that many people in Kansas don't even know the most basic stuff about science, like"What is Scientific Method" or "What is Scientific Theory?"

 

[JennyMominRI]

Creationism cannot ever be proven false, so it could never be a scientific theory, correct? Please, tell me, how can one prove that man evolved from a single celled organism (actually all life forms) be proven false? See, it can't be proven false either really, but the scientific community latches on to it like a leech. They conclude that it can in fact be proven false, but I think we can safely say that's not true.

I had to come back to this.. One does not come up with a *theory* and then look for facts to back it up..One looks at all the facts,formulates a hypothesis,or and educated guess..Then one tests the hypothesis..If it meets very high standard of testing it becomes a scientific theory.
Once again one does not come up with a *Theory* and then look for facts to support it.

 

[dcentity2000]

I reckon both should be taught and the children left to make their own minds up.

I win!



Rich::

 

[gigglesnort]

I reckon both should be taught and the children left to make their own minds up.

I win!



Rich::

why should something like Creationism be taught along side evolution in a PUBLIC SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASS though? It's not the place for it. If parent's are so upset about it, then they can choose to teach the kids creationism at dinner-time.

 

[MsLeFever]

What's the problem? It's just a theory. We learned all about the native Americans and their God's and we even learned what they believed about creation. I found it very interesting and had no problem with it. I found it interesting. That was one thing I liked, learning about the Native Americans. We did a lot of fun projects.

I'm sure that you learned this in a history or social studies class - NOT in science class. That is the difference.

 

[gigglesnort]

I'm sure that you learned this in a history or social studies class - NOT in science class. That is the difference.

I think I've tried explaining that before, perhaps you'll have better luck.

 

[DisneyDotty]

They hardly equate to one another. My tax dollars fund our school district just as much as your tax dollars fund your school. Church is optional!

Sure they equate. Church leaders are asking for equal time--equal representation in the discussion of Intelligent Design and Evolution. I say public school teachers have the right to the same demand of equal time. If not, then leave the beliefs to be taught at Church/in the home, and the scientific facts (of which there are many--eg., it is a FACT that the galaxies are slowly expanding away from each other. There are scientific theories as to why that is happening.) to be taught in the science classroom. Unfortunately, "science" had to be redefined in Kansas so as to allow these new "supernatural" (ie--I.D.) ideas to be included.
Further, since Church IS optional, while public schools are mandatory, why not stick with the FACTS in public schools. Public school teachers have enough to teach as it is. What is wrong with teachers saying "This is what scientists know to be a fact. There are other theories that you may learn about at home, at Church, etc. that have not been accepted by the scientiific world." I mean, really, if we start including beliefs about how the world was created, wouldn't we need to include a whole heckuva lot of belief systems? The ancient Greeks believed a god was holding up the earth. Five hundred years ago people believed the earth was flat. But what do we know as FACT? That's where we need to focus our energies.

Why are people so afraid of exposing our children to scientific knowledge? Are we so insecure in our beliefs that we assume the school system is going to eradicate everything we've taught at home?

Given how much the Church has been involved in recent political and educational/ideological campaigns, they ought to start paying taxes. My church leaders told me who I should and should not vote for. Seems like that's campaigning to me... But that's another topic.

 

[Kimberly]

For those interested, read this website... it's a sarcastic mockery of intelligent design. I love it.

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

[rigs32]

I would also add I find it a little presumptions of non Christians to constantly tell Christians they have no place!!! Why do my kids (though I enjoyed it) have to study the Muslim religion in school, yet Christianity can't be taught? I find it quite ironic that instead of replying that you didn't feel ANY religion should be taught in school, no matter what the religion, instead you feel I should have to fork over $5000 a year to send my kids to a Christian school. I suppose you don't see the hypocrisy in what you're saying, but some of us see crystal clear.

If your kids are Christian, then why do they need to learn about their religion in the public schools? It IS the majority religion in this country, so even non-Christian kids hear about and know major tenants/celebrations without teachers ever opening their mouths.

Yet, as the only Jew in my school growing up, no one EVER knew a darn thing about my beliefs and practices. My 9th grade social studies teacher, in the coverage on major religions (including Christianity) got some of the Judaism stuff wrong and she looked at my like I had three heads when I corrected her. Insisting that Christianity be taught to Christians in public schools doesn't make sense to me. *It is still the dominant religion in this country!!!!*

I firmly believe that minority kids in schools - whether due to race, religion, socioeconomic status, etc - should be protected to make sure that everyone is included/comfortable. I also think there is a different standard in 2nd grade than in 11th. 6/7 year olds don't always know enough not to repeat anti-semetic or racist that their parents say. At least when teenagers do so, it's a choice to spew hate.

When religion is taught in SS, they rarely spend more than 30-60 minutes on any one, so it's not really making a big impact anyway.

As for Intelligent Design, it's got no proof beyond the Bible. Evolution has living creatures, fossils, etc to vouch for that process.

Then again, we live in a country where people will ignore cold, hard data and listen to what tugs at their hearts strings because they can't think crtitically. One HUGE disadvatage to today's method of school in the US is that kids come out not being able to think critically - I saw it when I taught in college and would get papers with ideas and a level of thinking that belonged in 9th grade not a junior level college class.

 

[Laura]

Our world has evolved due to knowledge. I never said a growing animal equates to evolution, but I see you've tried your hardest to undermine what I did say. Nice going there. You didn't refute a point!

I merely mentioned the growing animal as an example, an extension of what you said. I wasn't as knowlegeable when I was born, but I gained more and more information over time, just like our generation has gained knowledge from past generations over the centuries, as you described. It's just that your example of gaining knowledge (and my example of a growing animal) is not the same as biological evolution.

You can say I evolve as a person, which means I mature and improve my personal qualities. But I'm not mutating into another species when I do that.

 

[Kimberly]

Creationism cannot ever be proven false, so it could never be a scientific theory, correct? Please, tell me, how can one prove that man evolved from a single celled organism (actually all life forms) be proven false? See, it can't be proven false either really, but the scientific community latches on to it like a leech. They conclude that it can in fact be proven false, but I think we can safely say that's not true.

Why is it, when you look back over history, our current population supports creationism? Our population would be how many times over if man stemmed back as far as evolution states?

One would think (I'd imagine) if all species evolved from one another (because they could) that it would be a very slow, gradual process? That's the whole concept of evolution, is it not? Well then, please do enlighten me on why there are no fossils for the in between species? I'd really like to know that one. While you're at it, why don't you point me to the direction that shows one type animal evolving into another? I don't mean a fish turning into another fish, or an ape turning into another ape, I'm more looking for a donkey turning into a bear.

You might want to think before you start calling people ignorant next time! MOO though Unless of course, you can answer all my questions?

All we can do is take the scientific data we do have and find facts that support it. So far the facts point towards Darwin's theory of evolution, and we have yet to uncover any "facts" that support the theory of creationism.

I believe that children should be taught the facts, and then let them decide for themselves what really happened. Logic will point towards the direction of evolution.

 

[Laura]

It can't be a theory because there is no physical way to prove it false. Thus, it cannot and will not ever be a scientific theory. It doesn't mean it's false.

I challenge the notion that evolution can ever be proven false as well though. There is no way anyone can go back that far and create unknown conditions in nature, let alone a lab.

Creationism can't be a scientific theory because there is no physical evidence of it in nature and labs to be observed by scientists, unlike the theory of evolution.

Here's a few answers for some of your questions. The FAQ of this PBS program might be helpful.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/

Is there evidence for evolution?

In the 150 years since Darwin proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection, a mountain of evidence has accumulated to support the theory. A greatly expanded fossil record since Darwin's time, the discovery of DNA and the process of genetic replication, an understanding of radioactive decay, observations of natural selection in the wild and in laboratories, and evidence in the genomes of many different organisms, including humans, have all bolstered the validity of the theory of evolution.


How can you know what happened millions of years ago if no one was there to see it?

Evidence and observation are the building blocks of all scientific inquiry; evolutionary science is no different. Evidence in the form of the fossil record, geological formations, and genetics attest to change having taken place and give clues to how evolution works. The theory of evolution puts these clues together into a cohesive explanation of the diversity of living things. Like all theories, the theory of evolution relies on tangible evidence as well as inference for those things that can't be observed directly. It is important to remember that Earth itself contains evidence of life in the past, and that this evidence provides critical support for the theory of evolution.


Does the fossil record tell us the whole story?

Opponents of evolution point to gaps in the fossil record as proof that the theory is invalid. They say the fossil record fails to show what are called "transitional forms," generally the in-between stages as one type of creature evolved into another. The fossil record certainly has gaps, mostly because the conditions required to create fossils have been rare ever since life began on Earth. A very small percentage of animals that have lived and died ever became fossils. Thus, many pieces of the puzzle are missing; some will never be found. Nonetheless, we have many, many fossils that illustrate evolutionary transitions between fish and amphibians, between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds, and in many lineages such as whales and horses. And new fossils continue to reveal transitional forms that some said don't exist.


Can you observe evolution happening?

Because for many species, humans included, evolution happens over the course of many thousands of years, it is rare to observe the process in a human lifetime. Usually only laboratory scientists studying quickly reproducing life forms, like single-celled creatures and some invertebrates, have the opportunity to see evolutionary change happen before their eyes. All of us can and do experience the indirect effects of evolution nearly every day, however. One of the more important evolutionary concerns facing humans today is the emergence of antibiotic-resistant microbes. A battle against bacteria that we have been winning with medicine for the last 50 years or so is now an even race, according to some scientists -- because of the rapid rate of bacterial evolution. Similarly, the use of pesticides in agriculture has driven the evolution of resistant insects that require more or harsher chemicals to be killed. Scientists studying Galapagos finches have seen evolutionary changes in beak size and shape in just a few years. Major evolutionary transformations take much, much longer.

 

[cardaway]

""This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that," said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat."

At least Janet has some sense.

 

[sodaseller]

If your kids are Christian, then why do they need to learn about their religion in the public schools? It IS the majority religion in this country, so even non-Christian kids hear about and know major tenants/celebrations without teachers ever opening their mouths.

Yet, as the only Jew in my school growing up, no one EVER knew a darn thing about my beliefs and practices. My 9th grade social studies teacher, in the coverage on major religions (including Christianity) got some of the Judaism stuff wrong and she looked at my like I had three heads when I corrected her. Insisting that Christianity be taught to Christians in public schools doesn't make sense to me. *It is still the dominant religion in this country!!!!*

I firmly believe that minority kids in schools - whether due to race, religion, socioeconomic status, etc - should be protected to make sure that everyone is included/comfortable. I also think there is a different standard in 2nd grade than in 11th. 6/7 year olds don't always know enough not to repeat anti-semetic or racist that their parents say. At least when teenagers do so, it's a choice to spew hate.

When religion is taught in SS, they rarely spend more than 30-60 minutes on any one, so it's not really making a big impact anyway.

As for Intelligent Design, it's got no proof beyond the Bible. Evolution has living creatures, fossils, etc to vouch for that process.

Then again, we live in a country where people will ignore cold, hard data and listen to what tugs at their hearts strings because they can't think crtitically. One HUGE disadvatage to today's method of school in the US is that kids come out not being able to think critically - I saw it when I taught in college and would get papers with ideas and a level of thinking that belonged in 9th grade not a junior level college class.

Great post. ID has no QED, no explanation for biogeography. It's not science. Kansas is doing a disservice to its children and to the nation

 

[sodaseller]

Inteesting political development - http://www.slate.com/id/2129179/

Voters threw out the Pennsylvania school board that approved "intelligent design." Eight of the nine board members were up for election; all eight lost to candidates who opposed the ID policy. This happened in a district that voted 65 percent for President Bush in 2004. (For Human Nature's take on the court case, click here.)

 

[dcentity2000]

why should something like Creationism be taught along side evolution in a PUBLIC SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASS though? It's not the place for it. If parent's are so upset about it, then they can choose to teach the kids creationism at dinner-time.

In the UK, kids are taught about all the major religions at school, the idea being to let them choose for themselves *hopefully* without bias. Creationsim is taught there.

nb. In RE (Religious Education) classes.



Rich::

 

[gigglesnort]

In the UK, kids are taught about all the major religions at school, the idea being to let them choose for themselves *hopefully* without bias. Creationsim is taught there.

nb. In RE (Religious Education) classes.



Rich::

Well, that's the point. If a public school has religion classes, then sure, it's taught there. If world religioins are taught in history classes, then okay.

But creationism, intelligent design have no place in a public school science class.

 

[ead79]

To give context to my opinion, I am a Creationist.

First of all, I totally agree that you cannot prove Creationism. It is indeed a faith-based belief about the origin of life. As has been pointed out, there is no way to apply the scientific method to Creationsim.

That being said, I do not believe that macroevolution (the overall concept of how life began and evolved here on earth) is sound scientific theory. I do believe in the science behind microevolution (adaptation within a species—such as the bird beaks that were mentioned in the thread earlier). There have been reproducible scientific experiments that have demonstrated microevolution.

I take issue with some of the key points of macro evolutionary theory. Namely, I have seen numerous studies that show that carbon dating is very unreliable. Despite its unreliability, it is very frequently used to date fossils and the dates are looked at as facts. I’m not saying that you can definitively prove that the fossils are “younger” than carbon dating reflects, but I think it is important to mention the unreliability of carbon dating in science courses. It is important to note that I don’t think they must then turn the discussion to Creationism, just that it’s valuable for students to understand that carbon dating is not accurate all of the time.

I also believe that macroevolution violates the Law of Entropy (the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). While I have read the opposing viewpoint to my argument, I have not seen compelling evidence that evolution does not violate this law. It essentially states that things will decline if left to their own devices. Such as a barn being left alone in a field will have chipped paint, then rot. Macro evolution holds that things have gradually improved over time to the point we are at today (and that we are still improving). Thus, in my opinion, macroevolution is at odds with another key scientific principle.

Essentially, I do not believe that public schools must teach Creationism since it is a faith-based belief. However, I do believe that pointing out key criticisms of evolutionary theory is key to a well-rounded education. For instance, if I was in a history course and was being taught that historians largely believe that the ancient Egyptians invented paper, but there is some evidence that questions that assertion, I see that as well-rounded education.

 

[scubamouse]

""This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that," said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat."

At least Janet has some sense.

Exactly!!!

I keep thinking - at least in Europe and Asia they still believe in science. Religious leaders have been persecuting science and scientist since the start of the Common Era. I don't understand why if one's faith is so strong that you believe in the inerrant Bible that you are so insecure that kids in school will be taught evolution. If one's faith is that strong, can't it stand a little intellectual scrutiny? I believe in and love Jesus and take comfort in the Bible but I do not believe the Bible to be the infallable word of God.

I'm fine w/teaching ID or creationism in a comparative religion class. but keep it out of a science class.