Kansas votes to keep its children ignorant...

[BelleMcNally]

Wow...I didn't even think that the genus might be blanked out! The genus referred to is the genus of Homoerectus and Homosapien.

 

[jenm2878]

Frankly, I find the theory of evolution quite ridiculous actually. It all happened cause it could? and...it's never happened again?

Evolution took millions of years to happen. It is still happening. It didn't occur overnight so of course you wouldn't be able to "see" it in your lifetime. (not starting an arguement, have just taken many biology/evolutionary classes)

ETA: I can't spell today, bear with me please.

 

[Laura]

Sorry—I had to actually do some work at work.

Laura, in response to your statement, I actually feel the way you do. You are 100% correct that my point of view is that of a non-scientist. Just as you said, I also don’t feel that I have enough advanced knowledge of physics to debate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If I am truly wrong in my interpretation, then I am open to changing my views on that law. That doesn’t mean I will accept macroevolution, but I do continue to evaluate my beliefs and understanding of science on an ongoing basis. I just think that some things are open to interpretation and that interpretation differs according to the author’s beliefs.

I also agree that the fossil record doesn’t provide conclusive data about “transitional” species. Essentially, many of the “missing links” are later found to be either hoaxes or misunderstandings or guesses based on available info. Obviously, I completely understand that those who believe in evolution do find the information compelling.

I sure as heck couldn't debate thermodynamics. When you mentioned it in your post, I was like, "huh?" and promptly went to Google. I'd have to call up my best friend the physicist and get her to feed me lines.

I have plenty of beliefs that aren't supported by science, but also aren't dismissed by it. Having been raised Catholic, I never had an issue with evolution as fact, science going against Bible teachings. It would be hard for anyone whose beliefs include taking Genesis literally to reconcile them with evolution.

You're right about fossil hoaxes. Fortunately good science will unearth the mistakes and assumptions made and fix them as they appear. The fossil record is so woefully incomplete. All we can do is keep digging. Maybe the missing link is out there.

 

[jenm2878]

I would also add I find it a little presumptions of non Christians to constantly tell Christians they have no place!!! Christians have absolutely no belief in the theory of evolution (which has NOT been proven - thus the name THEORY), yet none of us raise heck to get it pulled out of our schools even though it goes against everything we believe in. Perhaps it's the non Christians who should start sending their kids and paying to send their kids to secular schools. Why in the world does your belief trump mine?

I beg to differ. I am Christian yet believe in evolution. Please do not make blanket statements about "all" Christians.

 

[N.Bailey]

Ah, okay. If I am understanding you correctly then you believe that we are currently evolving (when I say we I mean all life) and we were evolving in the "recent" (whatever time period you want to put on it) past, but we weren't necessarily evolving in the distant past (presumably when God put us all here).

In this case, I cannot convince you irrefutably and scientifically that we all came from the same single-cell organism. We don't have a fossil for every single living thing there has ever been on the planet, which is what we would need to show step-by-step the evolutionary process from amoeba to human.

Let me try a rhetorical approach (using what I think are your own postulates):

1) I believe in a divine, self-aware consciousness (God).
2) I believe that all life stems from this single divine source.
3) I believe that the scientific mechanism known as "evolution" does operate in the present and the "recent" past, but not necessarily in the "distant" past
4) The scientific mechanism known as "evolution" says that all life stems from a single mundane source (some sort of single-celled organism)
5) By analogy then we have a single divine source vs. a single mundane source, allowing for the basic mechanism of evolution (I mean only mutation and adaptability, I am not referring to the origins of life)
6) Couldn't the divine source have caused there to be a single-celled organism that would thenceforth evolve into all of the varied forms of life in the universe?

I really like the direction the thread has gone since I visited last. I did just want to say to your response here however, that I never said the evolving process has only happened in recent history.

Care to take on the population issue? Why does our current population support creationist belief. Let me quote a question posed to the scientific community:

The current growth rate among human beings is 2% per year. Assume that the yearly growth rate was only 0.2% in the past. [To use a lower value would benefit the Evolution theory, because it would indicate that humans have been on earth for a longer period.] Assuming 5 billion humans today, a 0.2% annual growth rate would mean that there were 112 million on earth when Jesus was born, 2 million in 2000 BCE, 38,000 in 4000 BCE, 700 in 6000 BCE but only 13 humans in 8000 BCE. That checks out with a Genesis view of the earth's history, but not with the theory of evolution which says that **** sapiens have been around for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[N.Bailey]

Hi Nance! Just an FYI, tax dollars do fund churches/church programs all over the country--faith based intiative/social services.
And I'm hoping you don't think I told you to send your children to a private school.
You are certainly welcome to voice an opinion re: your school's curriculum. I apologize if you got the feeling that I told you otherwise.

I don't believe that any tax dollars go to fund my church.

That aside, no, you never said I should send my children to private school.

 

[BelleMcNally]

The current growth rate among human beings is 2% per year. Assume that the yearly growth rate was only 0.2% in the past. [To use a lower value would benefit the Evolution theory, because it would indicate that humans have been on earth for a longer period.] Assuming 5 billion humans today, a 0.2% annual growth rate would mean that there were 112 million on earth when Jesus was born, 2 million in 2000 BCE, 38,000 in 4000 BCE, 700 in 6000 BCE but only 13 humans in 8000 BCE. That checks out with a Genesis view of the earth's history, but not with the theory of evolution which says that **** sapiens have been around for hundreds of thousands of years.

Well, this would be an acceptable argument...if it weren't for the fact that the statistics don't take into account that poulation growth has only really occurred since the introduction of sedentary, agriculture-based civilization...ohh..let's say 14,000 years ago as a generous estimate. Before that acheaological evidence supports NO sizeable poulation increase.

It was only the introduction of civilization (made possible through agriculture) that allowed the population to grow larger with each subsequent generation.

It's really not academically sound to take the current population figures and work backwards--even the most complicated algorithm couldn't take into account the drastic changes that occured with agriculture.

And, by all evolutionary reckoning, human beings were done with the bulk of genetic growth at the time of the advent of civilization.

 

[FencerMcNally]

What she said

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Evolution is an interesting "theory." I'm glad the kids in Kansas will see the "creationism" side too.

What's this "votes to keep its children ignorant" nonsense?

 

[ford family]

Evolution is an interesting "theory." I'm glad the kids in Kansas will see the "creationism" side too.

What's this "votes to keep its children ignorant" nonsense?

Hey, JoeEpcotRocks, you're late, this thread has been running for days!!

Teaching kids in Kansas that Creationism and Intelligent Design have any scientific merit leaves them at an educational disadvantage to others in the country/world.

I think Creationism should be taught, in a religious study class, alongside Christianity, Deism, Buddhism etc etc.
For the record I think they are all rubbish, but respect other peoples right to believe.

I think that the Theory of Evolution should be taught in a science class alongside the Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Gravity etc, etc.
For the record I think they are all the nearest we have got, so far, to understanding the world we live in.

ford family

 

[cardaway]

I don't believe that any tax dollars go to fund my church.

That aside, no, you never said I should send my children to private school.

Actually, each tax payer helps fund the churches in their area with their tax dollars. Property taxes is only one example.

 

[cardaway]

What's this "votes to keep its children ignorant" nonsense?

Probably because it's a good bet that any area willing to pass such a foolish measure would also be wiling to go further and dump any actual science from the classes in favor of the "truth".

Even if that doesn't happen, any science class that takes time away to preach is going to be behind other science classes.

 

[Kimberly]

I really cannot believe how much supporters of Creationism are held up on the word theory. A simple definition given by www.google.com:

"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena"

I'd like to see a theory that supports Creationism. There is absolutely no empirical scientific evidence that actually supports creationism (someone prove me wrong, I'd actually like to see it). I'm sorry, but I believe that Creationism (Intelligent Design in my opinion is a joke, don't mix and mash things as you see fit) should be left for the church to teach. Let the actual empirical scientific data be taught in school.

 

[wvrevy]

I really cannot believe how much supporters of Creationism are held up on the word theory. A simple definition given by www.google.com:

"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena"

I'd like to see a theory that supports Creationism. There is absolutely no empirical scientific evidence that actually supports creationism (someone prove me wrong, I'd actually like to see it). I'm sorry, but I believe that Creationism (Intelligent Design in my opinion is a joke, don't mix and mash things as you see fit) should be left for the church to teach. Let the actual empirical scientific data be taught in school.

Don't hold your breath waiting to hear someone present actual evidence Kimberly...you may not look good in that shade of blue.

Hey Joe...the definition of ignorant is to be without knowledge. If taught that the story of creation is somehow equal to the theory of evolution, these kids will be "kept ignorant" of the fact that they are being lied to. There is no debate in the scientific community...only in the realm of politics and politicians caving to the religious right wing. People that don't believe in evolution are no better than people that do believe in astrology...same mumbo jumbo, just different names attached.

 

[Laura]

It's really not academically sound to take the current population figures and work backwards.

It seems that a lot of the creation "science" I have encountered is taking X data and working backwards from it. You should see how the young Earth creationists explain why we can see the light from stars tens of thousands of lightyears away when they believe the planet is only supposed to be about 10,000 years old at most.

 

[Charade]

How dare these people question accepted scientific theory! It would serve them right if they sail off the edge of the earth some day!

accepted theory??? A theory is STILL just a theory.

 

[dcentity2000]

Evolution, like it or not, is as almost as close to a fact as a scientific theory can be.

What I don't get is why the religious right try to defend a SIGNLE INTERPRETATION of the Bible over and above trying to reconcile the two.

What's to say that God didn't create x, y and z through the mechanisms of evolution in seven easy stages (or days, when you consider that a "day" simply implies one rotation of our planet which used to be dust and, well, dust...)



Rich::

 

[Charade]

Evolution, like it or not, is as almost as close to a fact as a scientific theory can be.

Yes, evolution at certain levels is pretty much fact but the problem is getting from a one cell amoeba to YOU! That's the hard part.

 

[Laura]

People that don't believe in evolution are no better than people that do believe in astrology...same mumbo jumbo, just different names attached.

I believe in astrology.

BUT, astrology is not even remotely a science. And it should not be included in any discussion of astronomy in any science class (except to explain the difference between the two).

 

[dcentity2000]

Yes, evolution at certain levels is pretty much fact but the problem is getting from a one cell amoeba to YOU! That's the hard part.

For the record, I kinda agree with this. I have a hunch that there was a little *help* on the way, even if I'm not sure how much.

However, I do fully believe that the mechanism was purely scientific in nature.

Science class is for science.

Religion class is for religion.

The two may mingle, but they may never mix.

[/incoherent rant]



Rich::