and it spreads

[Donkeytron]

I want your evidence for evolution

fluster & bluster - just give me some facts !!

here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

knock yourself out!

 

[Edx]

I want your evidence for evolution not someone else's buried in hundreds of threads with thousands of postings. Your assumtion about what I know is presumption which is not good scientific method.

My assumption about what you know is based on the fact that you didnt know what a scientific theroy was, and you demonstrate the kind of knowledge of evolution that someone might have learnt from Kent Hovind.

I really dont see why we need to clutter this thread up with you asking such inane questions which will take pages and pages and pages and pages and pages, all for you to ignore it. I for one am tired of giving the ignorent an education when they arent even willing to learn anyway.

Go make yourself another thread, and ask the same questions you asked here. Wait for people to reply. See, thats easy isnt it? And you wont have cluttered this thread up with stupid questions. When you are more knowledgeable about this subject, you can come back and we can have a proper debate about teaching evolution and creationism in schools.

fluster & bluster - just give me some facts !!

We are talking about teaching children evolution, are you admitting that it can't really be done ?

If you're just going to put words in my mouth I really dont see why I should waste anymore time with you. Ive seen your sort before, all you do is make up strawmen and lie about what people say. Why should any one bother with you?

(I have no idea why you pasted part of my signature in your reply either)

Ed

 

[Goatboy]

Sounds like a circular argument to me !

How so?
(if I had said evolution was scientific, because it was supported by scientific evidence that would be circular. As it was, I just gave a facetious answer to a pretty witless question).

Care to give some example of scientific evidence that show evolution *rather than* creation ?

As previously requested, if you can provide a scientifically testable model of “creation” for me then I’ll give it a go.

Until then, no I can’t, no one can.

Incidentally don’t you think that’s, maybe, a flaw of creationism?

Or does that thought make you uncomfortable, so you try not dwell on it too much?

fluster & bluster - just give me some facts !!

Multiple exclamation marks are both poor grammar and a good indication of a disturbed mind – Fact.

 

[Goatboy]

Back to the OP, as it’s pretty unclear exactly what it is that will be taught in the national curriculum so you can’t really make a judgement on it.

I mean, technically, I was “taught” the Ptolemaic concept of the solar system in physics at school (“This is what people used to believe – they were wrong.&#8221.

On that basis “creationism” is hardly going to prove a problem to teaching good biology.

 

[Loudmouth]

Back to the OP, as it’s pretty unclear exactly what it is that will be taught in the national curriculum so you can’t really make a judgement on it.

I mean, technically, I was “taught” the Ptolemaic concept of the solar system in physics at school (“This is what people used to believe – they were wrong.”).

On that basis “creationism” is hardly going to prove a problem to teaching good biology.

Lamarckism (acquired traits) is also taught in biology in the same light. However, Larmarckism and the Ptolemaic concept were both falsifiable through scientific investigation. Creationism, on the other hand, is not. Creationism is a religious belief that is held through faith, not scientific observations.

ID is in the same boat. ID is based on religious faith (belief in an unevidenced Designer) and on personal incredulity (life is too complex). Neither of these are scientific observations.

 

[Hydra009]

True, but one can at least falsify specific claims based on creationism/ID - like the young Earth, global flood, IC, etc.

 

[A New Dawn]

MOD HAT ON!

A friendly reminder to everyone to stay on-topic. And the topic of the thread is the article quoted in the OP, not evolutionary evidences.

Thanks.

MOD HAT OFF!

 

[Athene]

it is worth noting that the curriculum agrees that ID and creationism are not scientific theories. so any teachers caught trying to pass them off in that way should get sacked. I repeatedly had this problem with an old physics teacher of mine, and I regularly pwned him when he tried making out that scientific discoveries suggested that there was a god.

I've been trying to hammer this point in to somebody in the origins theology bit, he still insists that this is a sign for positive change in 'godless britain'

I can see some teachers using this to push their own beliefs on an un-suspecting audience but I'm confident we won't have the same problems that various states in America do, where ID and creationism are taught as fact.

 

[Dannager]

I can see some teachers using this to push their own beliefs on an un-suspecting audience but I'm confident we won't have the same problems that various states in America do, where ID and creationism are taught as fact.

Are there any states in America that currently teach ID or creationism as part of science curriculum? I'm not aware of any, and I imagine that if they existed they'd be taken to court on precedent to get those standards declared unconstitutional as they have been in PA.

 

[Athene]

Are there any states in America that currently teach ID or creationism as part of science curriculum? I'm not aware of any, and I imagine that if they existed they'd be taken to court on precedent to get those standards declared unconstitutional as they have been in PA.

Ah, my mistake, I thought that Kansas would be teaching ID and creationism as fact, but they're not, just raising the possibility that evolution is wrong and not ruling out the possibility of a higher power at work.

 

[Hydra009]

The new standards include several specific challenges, including statements that there is a lack of evidence or natural explanation for the genetic code, and charges that fossil records are inconsistent with evolutionary theory.

Eh, just a tad more than that. All scientific theories are tenative, and teaching that properly is no problem. This is the injection of creationist rhetoric into science cirriculum.