id

[Damon]

Sorry about the "Attacking Quip", it was ment as a point that evolutionist are not the only people in schools, and should not be the ones to decide what everyone should be teaching/learning.

I'd also add that 44% not believing in evolution doesn't translate to 44% that don't want to hear about evolution. I believe it's needed for a balanced view of what might have happened so everyone can then think/choose/decide for themselves.

This is my point, only teaching evolution is not balanced, and does not provide children with the oportunity to think/choose/decide for them selves, i'm saying if we are going to tech the origins of life then by all means teach evolution but also teach the other theories, if you want to take a biased approach then dont teach it at all

[ManDownUnder]

This is my point, only teaching evolution is not balanced, and does not provide children with the oportunity to think/choose/decide for them selves, i'm saying if we are going to tech the origins of life then by all means teach evolution but also teach the other theories, if you want to take a biased approach then dont teach it at all

Then we can agree on that. I have personally talked to my son about evolution and creationism... in 5 year old speak... so he knows there are different opinions held by different people.

I still think evolution should be the basis of education on the issue, and any moderating or alternate viewpoints can be introduced by parents or churches as required.

[Bartman10]

My point: is it appropriate to teach ID in a biology class? The answer is a definite no, just like it would be inappropriate to teach evolution in a church.

Maybe we should start a case that requires preaching of evolution in church, and see how far that goes.

Anyway, as far as I recall school biology only contains a small amount of evolution, most of it is dedicated to cell and organ structure, biochemistry and disease. These things that can definitely be considered and examined in a scientific laboratory.

[Damon]

Anyway, as far as I recall school biology only contains a small amount of evolution, most of it is dedicated to cell and organ structure, biochemistry and disease. These things that can definitely be considered and examined in a scientific laboratory.

Good point bartman, i think we've become caught up on the issue and forgoten how much is actually taught in schools, which is next to naf all,

I got caught up in a decent argument and now you've ruined it, back to work

[TwoSeven]

Sorry about the "Attacking Quip", it was ment as a point that evolutionist are not the only people in schools, and should not be the ones to decide what everyone should be teaching/learning.

This is my point, only teaching evolution is not balanced, and does not provide children with the oportunity to think/choose/decide for them selves, i'm saying if we are going to tech the origins of life then by all means teach evolution but also teach the other theories, if you want to take a biased approach then dont teach it at all

Dude, many years ago, the king of england went to a lot of effort separating church from state. It was done for a reason. You should spend some time getting an education and finding out why.

Religion and state do not mix. When you separate the two, it allows people to have the freedom to practice whatever religon they like - this is a basic human right - adopted by the united nations. Many people in western countries have died trying to defend this basic right.

The reason religon is not taught in schools is because it would be mixing religion and state since most schools are state owned. If you want to have religion in schools - they go to a private school. Thats what they are there for.

[El Dopa]

doesn't this include evolution as well? since it's still just a theory with a little evidence to back it up?

the religious guys would call finding Noah's Ark and Jesus' face cloth thing evidence as well,

If your going to start teaching "Theories" then teach them all and let the students make up their mind, it takes just as much faith to belive in Darwins theory as it does to belive in creation.

Sorry mate, wrong on all counts.

There is overwhelming evidence to back up the FACT that evolution happens (natural selection). The mechanism (how it happens) is the theory part, as biologists don't really fully understand the 'how' it happens.

Evolution is the fundamental building block of modern biology, which would not exist without it.

A similar situation would be gravity. It is a FACT. We all know it exists, but a physicist couldn't tell you WHY it exists.

However, my attempts to have a theory of 'intelligent falling' taught in schools aren't getting very far.

As far as I'm aware, Noah's ark hasn't been found, and it has not been established that the shroud of Turin isn't a medieval fake.

If we're going to teach ALL theories, perhaps we should teach medical students about the healing power of crystals and chanting? Or maybe we'll stick with what can demonstrably be shown to work.

[SimJen]

This is my point, only teaching evolution is not balanced, and does not provide children with the oportunity to think/choose/decide for them selves, i'm saying if we are going to tech the origins of life then by all means teach evolution but also teach the other theories, if you want to take a biased approach then dont teach it at all

Some interesting reading:

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."

[SimJen]

doesn't this include evolution as well? since it's still just a theory with a little evidence to back it up?

As usual people who have no idea choose to ignore the facts and science.
Much like all creationists they have no want to ever understand both sides of the argument.
They have the uncanny ability to believe whatever the church tells them is fact with very little evidence to ever back it up.
Read my other post to get an idea of what fact/theories really are.

the religious guys would call finding Noah's Ark and Jesus' face cloth thing evidence as well,

The Shroud of Turin has been proven not to be the cloth of jesus.....don't you watch the discovery channel? Carbon dating suggests its from medievel times, although I suppose you and the church would disregard this fact as it is science that has come up with the answer.
Just like the crying virgin statues always end up being complete hoaxes.
Noah's Ark has also not been found.........did you just make that up????

If your going to start teaching "Theories" then teach them all and let the students make up their mind, it takes just as much faith to belive in Darwins theory as it does to belive in creation.

It takes no faith to believe Darwins theory. It is the most plausible explanation (see my other post). The fact that there is masses of supporting evidence of evolution on a grand scale from animals to humans to tiny organisms is proof enough.
Bullshit bible stories and words from a priest don't constitute evidence.
Kids don't need indoctrinating into the world of make believe gods. Kids should be allowed to grow up free from religion and when they are at an age where they can make their own minds up they can join a church if they want too.

[Vagabond]

Stuff that I didn't evolve from an ape!



Aliens mate! as in ET..........

[SimJen]

Stuff that I didn't evolve from an ape!



Aliens mate! as in ET..........

True dat, thats another kettle of fish.......you'd have to join Tom Cruise and his loonies if you believe that.
Apes are intelligent creatures. I've got friends that don't look that far removed

[TwoSeven]

Stuff that I didn't evolve from an ape!



Aliens mate! as in ET..........

How about a small furry poodle then

[Vagabond]

How about a small furry poodle then

Doubt that either i'm 2 bald to be one of those!

[Ixion]

Dude, many years ago, the king of england went to a lot of effort separating church from state. ...

Eh ? That was those demn Yankee rebels did that. King Harry (Hen VIII) is maybe who you are thinking of, but he did the reverse, proclaimed himself Supreme Head of the Church of England.

Papist Mary disclaimed it (obviously) but Eliz I claimed it back as Supreme Governor.

Our present Queen (whom God Preserve, albeit she is a usurper), still bears the titles Supreme Governor of the Church of England,and Defender of the Faith . The monarch MUST by law be a communicating member of the Church of England , and the Church of England is the Established Church. The Archbishops are de facto members of the Privy council.

[Ixion]

Umm. No.



Darwinian evolution has been observed and proved and continues to be so.

A gentleman named Stephen Jay Gould (quoted, unattributedly, by another poster) might disagree with you.

Evolution is a fact (in so far as we can say anything is a fact). *Darwinian* evolution - ie natural selection - is a theory, and one that is looking increasingly inadequate. Not to say it is wrong, but that it is inadequate to explain all that it purports to .

However, if anyone really believes that the appalling mess that we call the universe is as it is by design, let alone *intelligent* design, I can only say to him "Circumspice" .

(Any bets on how long this thread lasts before being merged with the infamous Scottish Thread)

[Skyryder]

Geneisis 1:1;31 is a description of how the earth was formed through an 'evolutionary' process. The belief that all this happened in six days, and I might add that this is the core belief of creationasts, has been proved to be scientifically wrong. Creationists have assumed that where Genisis talks of 'created' that this implies instantaneous. Not so. From the first day to the sixth day is an evolving process not an instantaneous creation.

Skyryder