I agree that Evolution should be taught as a theory & it should be pointed out that it has not been proven 100%, but at the same time it is BY FAR the most reasonable answer science has been able to come up with. Intelligent Design is simply not science. As far as I can tell, there's not more than a shred of science to support it. Thus teaching it in a SCIENCE class is rediculous. Teach it in a Humanities class as a theory if you must, but let's keep science in the science class room.
Separation of Church and State. If you want your kids to learn religion in school, then send them to a Catholic School, or teach them at your house, or better yet, send them to Church.
Never said you should break out the Bible and teach it in science class, or even dwell on attempting to support creationism. However, when the subject is discussed in the classroom, it should be made mention of as one theory, given such a large % of the population believe in at least some aspects of creationism. Banning the concept from even being mentioned in the classroom serves no real purpose, other than satisfying the ACLU and those they represent. I don't think many Christian teachers would attempt to use science class in an effort to convert kids. If they did, I'm sure the school boards would handle them accordingly.
You shouldn't teach religion in school. You also shouldn't ban religion being mentioned in classrooms, which is what some are looking to do. If so, you had better start editing a lot of history books.
What do you do all day? I'm willing to bet it isn't science. Well, live and learn. Attempting to discredit me personally only emphasizes how little you offer to discredit my statements. Don't make things up and then demand that I defend it. Where did I say absolute proof? I didn't. I said "The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming." And I stand by it. I'll bet you can't. That's why you fear it. Look, I'll back up my statements with whatever documentation I damn well please and it will be scientific evidence. I'm quite sure you can find plenty of creationist websites that spout religion masquerading as science. That will delight me and prove my point. Science is science. Religion is religion. First of all it is clear to me that you don't even understand what a scientific theory is. You argue that evolution is only a theory and cannot be proven. A scientific theory is not a wild-ass guess. Many theories (gravity, relativity, evolution) cannot be proven, but have validity because they have withstood scientific scrutiny. Other theories (creationism, intelligent design, flying spaghetti monsters) immediately and completely fail the benchmark of scientific testing and analysis. As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts. A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts. It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves. Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions. Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religious beliefs.
Hmmm...it appears I've pissed off our resident political hermaphrodite and he's gone into one of his tirades again. Props to you, it appears you skipped Google and went straight to dictionary.com. Do us all a favor and do something useful. Snap a few pics off the west upper deck will you, amigo.
It is interesting to see how heated this topic can become....it's also interesting that if one chooses to believe a certain way then they "are stupid" that they support a "theory held by morons" and they can not accept anything contrary to their beliefs. Unfortunately, I think I just described both sides of this issue. :shock:
Think what you will; the only argument I had goes back to your original post, which was does intelligent design deserves mention in discussion of theories of creation. You asked should it be taught in schools; I attempted to explain the difference in teaching theories and discussing them. My definition of what should be taught is what can be proven with indisputable facts. Theories of creation are not proven and should be treated as such. My opinion, they should be discussed, but no single theory should be taught in a classroom as fact. As for Red, the old guy used to be somewhat civil, now he flies off the handle all the time. (Something to do with the theory of male menopause I guess :hihi I hacked on him a little in retaliation for his past references to me as a neo-con, a Hitler youth etc. I enjoy seeing him get riled up every now and then, so I pushed him a little. I laugh; he gets to write his latest dissertation plus stick in a cartoon at the end; it makes him feel good. A win-win situation. No harm intended.
