Arikay said:
I would agree that a change in our school system is needed. I think some of the details can be left for college and they need to teach the basic principles of science better.
Science isn't a popularity contest, unfortunatly the majority population doesn't have the best grasp on science. If it was left up to popular opinion we may be teaching children about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide (water).
Evolution can be falsified but hasn't been yet. It remains a foundation of biology and an important part of science.
The difficulty here is one of apples and mule ****. POVs that are appropriate in one place, may not be appropriate in another. You don't have to be so open minded that your brains fall out.
We do not tolerate the Satanist POV at our church on Sunday, and no amount of pleading for "tolerance' is going to change that.
Similarly, we do not tolerate the teaching of iodmatic French in math class, nor the playing of blue grasss guitar licks (no matter how handsomely done) during
Turandot.
No one here seems to hav eany problem with allowing churches to decide what constitutes the proper POV in their sunday schools.
Scientists get to say what science is, and what gets treated as science in the classroom, and what the facts of science are.
When Stephen Hawking starts telling Pope John Paul what Catholics should believe are teh facts about their doctrines, then we will let creationists decide what science is.
Until then, keep the donkey **** out of the fruit salad.
It's all about equating religion to science. It has nothing to do with "facts" or "theories" or "evidence" or "concepts" or "distinctions" or what the text books actually say.
It has everything to do with the fear of the modern world that religious people often feel when it turns out that god may be a more complicated being than a white guy with a beard and a magic wand.
Afterall, how does Evolution really contradict Creationism/God?
Who gets to tell God that He wasn't allowed to have used Evolution as a means of Creation...and, er, assuming we found someone with big enough balls, how do we tell Him that?
I'm at a loss to figure out if it is the Creationists who want to tell God that God could not have employed Evolution as part of ...snicker, snicker...Intelligent Design, or if it is the Evolutionists who want to tell them to tell Him that.
How does that work?
Snicker, snicker indeed, because rest assured, if we naked sweaty apes ever design a universe, it will damn well be perfect, none of these tornadoes and stubbed toes and bloody knees, no siree Bob, rest assured. I mean, what kind of a half-***** Supreme Being/God/Creator creates a third rate universe like THAT?
"See, right here, in this document that some other just a naked sweaty ape wrote, it says right there, evolution aint allowed. So, you'll have to perform some other prescribed perfect actual 7 day miracle before we can acknowledge that the whole f'n imperfect universe "as is", no warranty implied, is pretty miraculous, perfect or not."
...
What the Hell does this naked sweaty ape debate between just naked sweaty apes have to do in the least with any hypothetical concept of a Creator and what such a Creator must have or must not have done in order to create the universe?
What I'd love to see is, who wrote the rules of
that debate/game.
"5 yard penalty on the Supreme Being, creating the Giant Squid via evolution. Repeat second down!"