Evolution classes "optional" under new proposed law

[Φρανκομβριτ]

A controversial Alberta bill will enshrine into law the rights of parents to pull their children out of classes discussing the topics of evolution and homosexuality.

The new rules, which would require schools to notify parents in advance of "subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation," is buried in a bill that extends human rights to homosexuals. Parents can ask for their child to be excluded from the discussion.

"This government supports a very, very fundamental right and that is parental rights with respect to education," said Premier Ed Stelmach.

Although Stelmach has confirmed the bill will give parents the authority to exclude their kids from classes if the topic of evolution comes up, Education Minister Dave Hancock said it won't change anything.

"With respect to values, religion and sex education have always been areas of concern for parents, and they've always been areas parents have had the right to be notified about and to exempt their students from," Hancock said.
Debate over Alberta's international image

Frank Bruseker, the head of the Alberta Teachers' Association, is meeting with Hancock on Monday to raise his concerns.

"If parents don't want that kind of education for their children they have a couple of options," Bruseker said. "One would be home schooling or private school. So for a public school to start excluding based on religious preference, I think is a mistake."

'All they've done is make Alberta look like Northumberland and sound like Arkansas.'— Brian Mason, Alberta NDP leader

Bruseker said it would be difficult for teachers to avoid the topic of evolution in science or geography classes.

The proposed legislation has touched off a debate about just what kind of image Alberta's government is trying to create around the world.

NDP Leader Brian Mason likened the bill to Alberta recently using a photo of a British beach in an ad to promote the province.

"This government just spent $25 million of taxpayers money to give Alberta a new image. All they've done is make Alberta look like Northumberland and sound like Arkansas," Mason said.

The new legislation could be passed within a few weeks.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/04/30/cgy-bill-evolution-law-alberta-classes-teachers.html?ref=rss

[ShatteredWings]

Parents can ask for their kids to be excluded

What ever happened to what the kids want?

[Atonement]

Parents can ask for their kids to be excluded

What ever happened to what the kids want?

The kids are too young to realize what is going on.

I believe the kids should have exposure to the topics as it will be their choice in the end. You can only "shelter" them for so long.

[ShatteredWings]

Because we're teaching evolution in second grade now?

[Whisper]

Thank god I'm back on the island
I'm so fucking sick of Alberta


Frank Bruseker, the head of the Alberta Teachers' Association, is meeting with Hancock on Monday to raise his concerns.
WAIT....HANCOCK'S REAL?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Sapphire]

This is ridiculous. I can see why some parents don't want their kids to take religious education but to be able to withdraw them out of science for the same reason is crazy.

[Jean Poutine]

Anyone who says evolution is not a scientific theory and should not be studied on the same level as, say, genetics or biodiversity is ludicrously asinine.

I'm all for Alberta's fiscal policies but there's social conservative and Social Conservative with caps. And SCs with caps piss me the hell off

[Sage]

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2005/05/16/tomo/story.jpg

[INFERNO]

I find it disgusting that parents would choose to shelter their kids in such a way especially now that it's legal in one area. I say let the kids be exposed and allow them to weigh the options and choose instead of having only one "choice". If the kids want to learn it then they should be able to. What's next, pulling kids out of math class because the parents don't like math or are bad at math? How can they expect their kids to have an education when whenever a certain topic (a rather common one) creeps up, the parents yank them away and presumably drill their religious beliefs into their almost brainwashed child(ren) even more? Good job on giving their kids a fair education.

If Alberta has some common sense, they should bury their head in the sand as the inevitable and upcoming largescale debates on this build up. That $25 million, well at least some of it that was spent on education, might as well be tossed down the shitter.

[Number02]

... Kids should be taught everything. And what about the kids who happen to find what they ARE being taught complete bull? They are led to... well. Nothingness. They're given no alternative thought process.

[ThUnDeR]

thats good that they finnaly made a bill for that cause i hated learning about evolution

[Commander Thor]

thats good that they finnaly made a bill for that cause i hated learning about evolution
Why? May I ask?

[INFERNO]

thats good that they finnaly made a bill for that cause i hated learning about evolution

Is it because it conflicts with your beliefs or is there another reason?

[Untouched]

This is complete and utter bullshit. I can see this happening in a private school or in homeschooling, but in public schools? Absolutely absurd. I feel so lucky in the sense that my parents actually expose me to this and let me decide for myself what I believe. I have sympathy for the children that aren't allowed the same option, though. Whatever happened to the idea of FAIR education?

I believe the moral of the story is, religion ruins everything.

[Ripplemagne]

I think a lot of you are overreacting to this. I'm, actually, quite happy to hear about that considering Evolution was always a topic that I thought had no place being taught in the Science classroom. Being that it is not a confirmed theory and has a lot of holes in it, it's rather irritating to see it being passed off as science and propagated as infallible.

Some of you may not understand because you haven't had to deal with teachers and professors who outright ridicule your beliefs and refuse to listen to anything contrary you have to say to their lesson, but this is definitely a step in the right direction and I, for one, am amazed that it got passed considering how rarely the religious community is considered when making academic decisions.

A lot of what Evolution professes is very hollow because they take facts like natural selection and microevolution and cross breed it with macroevolution, the punctuated equilibrium, the rock theory, among other things. And that, in turn, leads to stagnating the notion that we shouldn't question societal views.

Why some of you are taking this so badly is beyond me because if they were teaching about creationism in school, some of you would be up in arms about it, yet if someone else's views are the ones being probed, you think it's "disgusting" that they would want to stay out of it.

Some of you don't understand how aggressively creationists are shafted in the scientific and academic communities. I haven't watched it, but Ben Stein made a movie called "Expelled" which goes into great detail about it, supposedly.

[shelb angs]

I think the compromise would be to have class that teaches both as well, seeing as they're both theories along with courses that teach solely Creationism and solely Evolution.
That way the kids have a choice and can be exposed to both.

thuar

[Sapphire]

I think a lot of you are overreacting to this. I'm, actually, quite happy to hear about that considering Evolution was always a topic that I thought had no place being taught in the Science classroom. Being that it is not a confirmed theory and has a lot of holes in it, it's rather irritating to see it being passed off as science and propagated as infallible.It is clear you don't know much about science. In science nothing is held as fact or infallible. Every theory that has collaborating evidence is accepted until the moment that it is disproved. Science holds falsification as very important. Evolution is the accepted scientific theory because it is the theory which best explains the evidence and it hasn't been disproved by anything.

Some of you may not understand because you haven't had to deal with teachers and professors who outright ridicule your beliefs and refuse to listen to anything contrary you have to say to their lesson, but this is definitely a step in the right direction and I, for one, am amazed that it got passed considering how rarely the religious community is considered when making academic decisions.The religious community doesn't have to be separate from the academic community, all it needs is for the religious community to accept the evidence that the academic community uncover. By completely dismissing tangible evidence from the present for ancient scripts is not the way to unite the two communities. If that is the route you choose then you shouldn't expect the academics to hold your opinion in esteem.

A lot of what Evolution professes is very hollow because they take facts like natural selection and microevolution and cross breed it with macroevolution, the punctuated equilibrium, the rock theory, among other things. And that, in turn, leads to stagnating the notion that we shouldn't question societal views.Do you have any real idea about what you are talking about? The way this quote is worded I would say that you haven't looked into at all.

Why some of you are taking this so badly is beyond me because if they were teaching about creationism in school, some of you would be up in arms about it, yet if someone else's views are the ones being probed, you think it's "disgusting" that they would want to stay out of it.

Some of you don't understand how aggressively creationists are shafted in the scientific and academic communities. I haven't watched it, but Ben Stein made a movie called "Expelled" which goes into great detail about it, supposedly.
Creationism has no place in the academic world. It isn't testable and therefore is frowned upon by the scientific community which holds falsifiability as very important. We have evidence that the Earth is about 4 billion years old, not 6,000 years old. It goes on.

Challenging someone else's views is fine and encouraged to further knowledge. But the fact that people want to stop their children learning things which are true and well supported and to teach them that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago by an all-powerful being is disgusting. If it didn't spread ignorance then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Ripplemagne]

It is clear you don't know much about science. In science nothing is held as fact or infallible. Every theory that has collaborating evidence is accepted until the moment that it is disproved. Science holds falsification as very important. Evolution is the accepted scientific theory because it is the theory which best explains the evidence and it hasn't been disproved by anything.

Not commercially anyway.

But no, science is the study of what is. Theoretically observation is what you're describing right now. For example, we know that the blood is red because of red blood cells. That is science. It is irrefutable, verifiable and all of the pieces are there. Evolution is a theory which, while well documented and has some compelling arguments, is still under scrutiny in regards to the Cambrian Explosion, the contrast between beneficial mutations and the punctuated equilibrium, Guadeloupe Woman, the Calaveras Skull, the Castinedolo Skull, the Moab Skeletons, among dozens of other things.

While microevolution is, undoubtedly, factual. Macroevolution is just a hypothesis.

The religious community doesn't have to be separate from the academic community, all it needs is for the religious community to accept the evidence that the academic community uncover. By completely dismissing tangible evidence from the present for ancient scripts is not the way to unite the two communities. If that is the route you choose then you shouldn't expect the academics to hold your opinion in esteem.

You seem to be under the common misconception that all theists are informed insubstantially. Yes, there are a great number of people who will deny evidence in the face of fact, but there are a great many who present reasonable arguments, who are not given the exposure that the evolutionary community enjoys.

Do you have any real idea about what you are talking about? The way this quote is worded I would say that you haven't looked into at all.

I have a very good idea of what I'm talking about. But while we're on the subject, why don't you tell me what you know about Evolution?

Creationism has no place in the academic world. It isn't testable and therefore is frowned upon by the scientific community which holds falsifiability as very important. We have evidence that the Earth is about 4 billion years old, not 6,000 years old. It goes on.

Actually, the legitimacy of carbon dating is fairly fallacious and misleading. (http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php) So, the evidence isn't as compelling as you'd like to believe. Though, the age of the Earth is irrelevant in terms of creationism because it's very plausible that the Earth is older than six thousand years old through a creationist view point.

Challenging someone else's views is fine and encouraged to further knowledge. But the fact that people want to stop their children learning things which are true and well supported and to teach them that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago by an all-powerful being is disgusting. If it didn't spread ignorance then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

You seem to be highly weighting your words in an absolutist circumlocution, making it appear as though any view point except the commonly held one is absurd. Why is it disgusting if someone has done the research and does not believe in Evolution and opts for Creationism as the viable option?

[Sapphire]

Not commercially anyway.

But no, science is the study of what is. Theoretically observation is what you're describing right now. For example, we know that the blood is red because of red blood cells. That is science. It is irrefutable, verifiable and all of the pieces are there. Evolution is a theory which, while well documented and has some compelling arguments, is still under scrutiny in regards to the Cambrian Explosion, the contrast between beneficial mutations and the punctuated equilibrium, Guadeloupe Woman, the Calaveras Skull, the Castinedolo Skull, the Moab Skeletons, among dozens of other things.Science doesn't take anything as irrefutable or absolute. It works on the basis that everything is theory waiting to be disproved. Karl Popper (1963) said "One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

While microevolution is, undoubtedly, factual. Macroevolution is just a hypothesis.As I have said already, nothing is held to be absolute fact.
Macroevolution has evidence supporting it just like microevolution has evidence to support it. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


You seem to be under the common misconception that all theists are informed insubstantially. Yes, there are a great number of people who will deny evidence in the face of fact, but there are a great many who present reasonable arguments, who are not given the exposure that the evolutionary community enjoys.And pray tell me what these so-called reasonable arguments are and what they are based in.


Actually, the legitimacy of carbon dating is fairly fallacious and misleading. (http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php) So, the evidence isn't as compelling as you'd like to believe. Though, the age of the Earth is irrelevant in terms of creationism because it's very plausible that the Earth is older than six thousand years old through a creationist view point.Hmm, a very nice and biased website there. This paints a more accurate picture http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating.htm

You seem to be highly weighting your words in an absolutist circumlocution, making it appear as though any view point except the commonly held one is absurd. Why is it disgusting if someone has done the research and does not believe in Evolution and opts for Creationism as the viable option?I'm scientific in my approach and if something can't be tested then I will not give it anywhere near as much weight as something which can be tested. Hardly a faulty way of thinking when dealing with scientific theories and evidence.
In comparison to a falsifiable scientific theory the unfalsifiable theory of Creationism is fanciful.

[Sage]

I think the compromise would be to have class that teaches both as well, seeing as they're both theories along with courses that teach solely Creationism and solely Evolution.
That way the kids have a choice and can be exposed to both.

thuar

I have no problem with, so long as religion is not passed off as science.

[Ripplemagne]

Science doesn't take anything as irrefutable or absolute. It works on the basis that everything is theory waiting to be disproved. Karl Popper (1963) said "One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability."

Just because someone says something doesn't make it fact. Think of it from the perspective of a child in school, taking up Science. Science class teaches you all of the bones in the human body, what we know about how the brain operates, among other things that are, essentially, infallible. You view what's taught in Science class as unquestionable. You don't consider, "Hey, this is just the hypothesis that some dude in a lab came up with."

There are plenty of things through scientific protocol that we can affirm as 100% accurate. For example, if you apply heat to a solid object, it will eventually become a liquid. Thereafter, it may become a gas.

If Evolution were taught in school and it was made apparent that the theory was still under scrutiny or was part of the curriculum for Investigative Science, I'd be alright with it. But in my classes, it was never mentioned that Evolution was just a theory. In fact, it was described as though it is inconceivable that it is not in effect.

As I have said already, nothing is held to be absolute fact.
Macroevolution has evidence supporting it just like microevolution has evidence to support it. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

And it has evidence against it as well. (http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_TOC.htm)

And pray tell me what these so-called reasonable arguments are and what they are based in.

The link above is a good start. I don't want to overwhelm you with too much material at once.

Hmm, a very nice and biased website there. This paints a more accurate picture http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating.htm

Oh, oh. And Stephen Jay Gould shines impartiality all over the place. And TalkOrigins, who cites their mission statement as "Explores creation/evolution/intelligent design, gives the evidence for evolution, and tells what's wrong with intelligent design" oozes objectivity. If we're going to play the biased source card, we might as well end the discussion now because we can use that to entirely stonewall any progress in this discussion.

Nevertheless, your article didn't refute a single thing. In fact, it's counter-productive to your argument.

I'm scientific in my approach and if something can't be tested then I will not give it anywhere near as much weight as something which can be tested. Hardly a faulty way of thinking when dealing with scientific theories and evidence.
In comparison to a falsifiable scientific theory the unfalsifiable theory of Creationism is fanciful.

As do I. In fact, I'm going into the scientific field, ala Clinical Pathology, so please don't make shotgun judgments and assume that I haven't done my research.

[The Freed]

I think a lot of you are overreacting to this. I'm, actually, quite happy to hear about that considering Evolution was always a topic that I thought had no place being taught in the Science classroom.
You and your Catholic-ness.
But, I would rather learn about it, being even if it has some holes in it, it explained many things to humans.
And helped the idea for the Pokemanz.

[ShatteredWings]

Can we NOT debate in here guys? This isn't ramblings of the wise (debate forum).

State opinion. not debate them

I still say this law is stupid. Public school is NO place to be teaching religion as science. The two SHOULD be kept apart.
If you don't want your kid to be hearing science, and you want them to be sheltered, home school.

[Ripplemagne]

You and your Catholic-ness.
But, I would rather learn about it, being even if it has some holes in it, it explained many things to humans.
And helped the idea for the Pokemanz.

I'm not Catholic...

Can we NOT debate in here guys? This isn't ramblings of the wise (debate forum).

State opinion. not debate them

I did. I only responded to what was directed at me.

[Bobby]

As Gywn said, take it to The Ramblings of the Wise.

[Truth]

Is it because it conflicts with your beliefs or is there another reason? Im glad they did cause now i just have a reason to skip science, quite a lame subject.

I have no problem with, so long as religion is not passed off as science. Since when was it? It takes common sense to know the difference between science and religion..

[Whisper]

Im glad they did cause now i just have a reason to skip science, quite a lame subject.
Wow you arent going to get far in life with that attitude you need your basic sciences, maths, language arts and social to get into anything in university or college

Since when was it? It takes common sense to know the difference between science and religion..
allot of psuedoscience trys actually

[INFERNO]

But no, science is the study of what is. Theoretically observation is what you're describing right now. For example, we know that the blood is red because of red blood cells. That is science. It is irrefutable, verifiable and all of the pieces are there. Evolution is a theory which, while well documented and has some compelling arguments, is still under scrutiny in regards to the Cambrian Explosion, the contrast between beneficial mutations and the punctuated equilibrium, Guadeloupe Woman, the Calaveras Skull, the Castinedolo Skull, the Moab Skeletons, among dozens of other things.

While microevolution is, undoubtedly, factual. Macroevolution is just a hypothesis.

While you seem to be rather intelligent, your posts are inaccurate as to the basics of science. For starters, NOTHING is held as a fact. A fact is something that will not change no matter on the circumstances and is true for all our current knowledge. The theory of evolution is under scrutiny, but then again, so are many other theories. Take the binding problem or binding theory, a very big topic in neuroscience or what the function of P21 is. All of it are theories heavily based on the scientific method. What percentage of those are facts? 0%. What percentage of heating a solid object so it turns into a liquid form and possibly a gaseous form is a fact? 0%.

Until we know everything that there is to know in the universe, then the only fact we can use is that science has no other facts.

Science is heavily based on theories, which are all falsifiable and non-factual. Evolution does have holes in it, but then again, so do numerous other theories. In most high school science courses and some first-year university ones, you're introduced briefly to the scientific method, what a theory is, what science is, etc... . So from the beginning, you're already told that what you learn probably will have some holes in it or is under investigation. I don't consider it necessary to tell the child each time they learn a scientific theory on something that it has flaws or holes. But if that is what it takes for certain children, then do that.

Im glad they did cause now i just have a reason to skip science, quite a lame subject.

Pft, science, who needs that? I mean, medicine, computers, cars, basic counting, etc..., bah, that's all rubbish isn't it? What was used to built the computer you're using, who cares, it's lame, you don't need it for anything at all.

[Truth]

Wow you arent going to get far in life with that attitude you need your basic sciences, maths, language arts and social to get into anything in university or college

Pft, science, who needs that? I mean, medicine, computers, cars, basic counting, etc..., bah, that's all rubbish isn't it? What was used to built the computer you're using, who cares, it's lame, you don't need it for anything at all. So, evolution now equals medicine, computers, cars? Haha, it doesnt; and sorry that i dont want to bother learning something like evolution. I dont believe evolution, and wont till it's proven. So why should i have to learn about it. It's just like saying you have to learn about a religion, and you have no choice to say no. And science is a lame class, and if you dont agree.. I'd honestly have to say you're a nerd. (No offense.) And whisper, i plan to get into 3D designing or programming, if i dont make a band, so go ahead and say i wont get into college. :P

[Sage]

So, evolution now equals medicine, computers, cars?P

Evolution is the basis of much of modern biology and understanding of evolution is used to create vaccines against new diseases. On the subject of computers and cars, evolutionary principles are being implimented into robotics technology to form systems that actively learn new things rather than having all their functions pre-programmed.

+1 for Des.

[redcar]

And science is a lame class, and if you dont agree.. I'd honestly have to say you're a nerd. (No offense.)

Science is a lame class? Are you being serious or just being ridiculously stupid? Ever been sick, ever had to take anti biotics? Ever used electricity? Science and the people who study it are the people who have provided you with all the wonders of the modern world. Science class is the chance to actually understand a very minute part of this amazing world and for you to say it is lame just shows that you are very ignorant to what goes on around you.

[Whisper]

So, evolution now equals medicine, computers, cars? Haha, it doesnt; and sorry that i dont want to bother learning something like evolution. I dont believe evolution, and wont till it's proven. So why should i have to learn about it.
You're suffering from a linguistic dispute you're confused by "theory" in the scientific world and in general use it has two VERY different meanings, so your argument is flawed there....I love how you believe that everything in all existence was created by an invisible man though.


Scientific Theory
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofscience/tp/CriteriaScientificTheory.htm

Common use in every day language

6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory&fromAsk=true&o=100074

http://www.fsteiger.com/cartoon2.gif


It's just like saying you have to learn about a religion, and you have no choice to say no. I took three years of religion it was mandatory at my catholic school but even when i was in the public system they had crosses everywhere and forced us to say a prayer every morning

And science is a lame class, and if you dont agree.. I'd honestly have to say you're a nerd. (No offense.) And whisper, i plan to get into 3D designing or programming, if i dont make a band, so go ahead and say i wont get into college. :P

So anyone who believes in things that can be proven through empirical evidence is a nerd? Hmm interesting your more the "allah akbar" type are you?

You will not get into anything to do with computers PERIOD
Not gonna happen if you refuse to take your sciences in full and get acceptable marks
Not going to happen
Unless you're looking at fucking Northern Lakes (LMFAO)....then....maybe but good luck getting a job


XdkyLrDpaUg


Oh and nice username
very quaint

[Ripplemagne]

Guys, you're going to get the thread closed. When I have the will to do so, I'll post in the Ramblings of the Wise forum, but they politely asked that we didn't turn this into a debate thread.

[Maverick]

Makes sense to move the thread there. Done.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

This is absolutely stupid. I've seen some people on here opt for teaching creationism alongside evolution. NOT in science class, you won't! Creationism is NOT science. If it was, then we would have to teach astrology alongside astronomy, and the four humors instead of modern medicine. Ridiculous.

Alberta is our messed-up western bible belt, and needs to be brought into the 21st century.

[Camazotz]

I think the compromise would be to have class that teaches both as well, seeing as they're both theories along with courses that teach solely Creationism and solely Evolution.
That way the kids have a choice and can be exposed to both.

thuar

Have you ever heard of Pastafarism? It is the belief of Intelligent Design by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Should this also be taught in a science class because it is a belief with sufficient followers?

So, evolution now equals medicine, computers, cars? Haha, it doesnt; and sorry that i dont want to bother learning something like evolution. I dont believe evolution, and wont till it's proven. So why should i have to learn about it. It's just like saying you have to learn about a religion, and you have no choice to say no. And science is a lame class, and if you dont agree.. I'd honestly have to say you're a nerd. (No offense.) And whisper, i plan to get into 3D designing or programming, if i dont make a band, so go ahead and say i wont get into college. :P

Science is lame? Existence is lame? Everything you want to do has to do with science, yet it is lame? Without physics, (a branch of science) you wouldn't have gym class. Without technology, (products of scientific advancements) you wouldn't have anything you own.

I ask again, science is lame? Or is ignorance lame?

Evolution is the basis of much of modern biology and understanding of evolution is used to create vaccines against new diseases. On the subject of computers and cars, evolutionary principles are being implimented into robotics technology to form systems that actively learn new things rather than having all their functions pre-programmed.

+1 for Des.

+ Respect for Des. Great points Des, keep it up.

This is absolutely stupid. I've seen some people on here opt for teaching creationism alongside evolution. NOT in science class, you won't! Creationism is NOT science. If it was, then we would have to teach astrology alongside astronomy, and the four humors instead of modern medicine. Ridiculous.

Alberta is our messed-up western bible belt, and needs to be brought into the 21st century.

Great points.

Without evidence, Intelligent Design is not science. Not teaching evolution is ignoring scientific theory. Should we also stop teaching about gravity because it is also a theory? Is God responsible for us being pulled (or pushed) towards the center of Earth?

[INFERNO]

So, evolution now equals medicine, computers, cars? Haha, it doesnt; and sorry that i dont want to bother learning something like evolution. I dont believe evolution, and wont till it's proven. So why should i have to learn about it. It's just like saying you have to learn about a religion, and you have no choice to say no. And science is a lame class, and if you dont agree.. I'd honestly have to say you're a nerd. (No offense.) And whisper, i plan to get into 3D designing or programming, if i dont make a band, so go ahead and say i wont get into college. :P

You obviously didn't understand what I said. Evolution is part of science, as is medicine, computers, cars, etc... .

Nothing in science will ever be fully proven or disproven. Scientific theories must be falsifiable. If you want a fact for science, then here is the one fact: there are no other facts. The sooner this is understood, the better. If you want solid, hard facts, then unfortunately for you, religion cannot give that either. Religion is open to interpretation, so sadly, even that does not fit your idea of something having to be factual. So, we've ruled out science and religion, now my question to you: what is factual that you accept or believe in?

Wait... so science is lame, according to you, I'm a nerd yet you want to go into computer programming and 3-D design which is science... . Unless of course according to you, those aren't science? I don't understand this one bit. I guess you'll also be a nerd then, now won't you? But seeing as how you don't even understand the very fundamentals of science, I'm seriously questioning this.

[Mind forte]

Hmm, a very nice and biased website there. This paints a more accurate picture http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating.htm
I love how that page says the following things:
"We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past."
Key word: Assume

"We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past"


"And finally, this dating scheme is controversial because the dates derived are often wildly inconsistent. For example, "One part of Dima [a famous baby mammoth discovered in 1977] was 40,000 RCY [Radiocarbon Years], another was 26,000 RCY"

I can see how it works though

Also, religulous was a very biased movie and was aiming to make Christianity to look stupid. It briefly went after Judiasm and Islam. All he did was ask people questions they obviously weren't prepared for. Most Christians wouldn't be.

[Sage]

I love how that page says the following things:
"We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past."
Key word: Assume

I personally don't think someone taking the theistic point of view should be whining about assumptions.

[Mind forte]

I personally don't think someone taking the theistic point of view should be whining about assumptions.
I'm not whining ;) just pointing it out, I know I have to assumethings too, but I find what I saw on that link hilarious.

[Sage]

I'm not whining ;) just pointing it out, I know I have to assumethings too, but I find what I saw on that link hilarious.

I hope you're not just making an appeal to ridicule (poor debate tactic), because I don't see anything particularly funny.

[punkjake]

That's ,wrong my mom is catholic and she taught me evolution(all of it!!!) when i was 8 ,I believe some of it,but they should be taught, if they don't believe /like it they don't have too.I'm a religious man who wants to bring new age to Catholics T_T I'm kinda a agontisc (don't no how to spell it T_T)the half atheist half theist one,but I'm more on theist side though.

[punkjake]

I think a lot of you are overreacting to this. I'm, actually, quite happy to hear about that considering Evolution was always a topic that I thought had no place being taught in the Science classroom. Being that it is not a confirmed theory and has a lot of holes in it, it's rather irritating to see it being passed off as science and propagated as infallible.

Some of you may not understand because you haven't had to deal with teachers and professors who outright ridicule your beliefs and refuse to listen to anything contrary you have to say to their lesson, but this is definitely a step in the right direction and I, for one, am amazed that it got passed considering how rarely the religious community is considered when making academic decisions.

A lot of what Evolution professes is very hollow because they take facts like natural selection and microevolution and cross breed it with macroevolution, the punctuated equilibrium, the rock theory, among other things. And that, in turn, leads to stagnating the notion that we shouldn't question societal views.

Why some of you are taking this so badly is beyond me because if they were teaching about creationism in school, some of you would be up in arms about it, yet if someone else's views are the ones being probed, you think it's "disgusting" that they would want to stay out of it.

Some of you don't understand how aggressively creationists are shafted in the scientific and academic communities. I haven't watched it, but Ben Stein made a movie called "Expelled" which goes into great detail about it, supposedly.
agreed/dido

[INFERNO]

That's ,wrong my mom is catholic and she taught me evolution(all of it!!!) when i was 8 ,I believe some of it,but they should be taught, if they don't believe /like it they don't have too.I'm a religious man who wants to bring new age to Catholics T_T I'm kinda a agontisc (don't no how to spell it T_T)the half atheist half theist one,but I'm more on theist side though.

So you learned everything about evolution when you were 8? I find it hard to believe that. And I'm curious though, seeing as how you supposedly know everything there is to know about it, what parts do you not believe and what parts do you believe?

[marty]

I think that evolution must be taught in schools. It;s not just some possibility, it is a fact. it has been scientifically proven. I think that it is absolutely ridiculous to allow parents to pull their children out of learning the truth.

[punkjake]

So you learned everything about evolution when you were 8? I find it hard to believe that. And I'm curious though, seeing as how you supposedly know everything there is to know about it, what parts do you not believe and what parts do you believe?

it is true and i beleve that we came from caveman,apes,missing link but i don't think we came from water

[Sage]

i beleve that we came from caveman,apes,missing link but i don't think we came from water

What makes that so hard to wrap you mind around?

[ThatCanadianGuy]

it is true and i beleve that we came from caveman,apes,missing link but i don't think we came from water

Look at your hands. You still have webbed fingers like sea creatures do. Problem solved.

[Mind forte]

it is a fact
Wrong.
it has been scientifically proven.
Wrong.

absolutely ridiculous to allow parents to pull their children out
The child belongs to the parent, not the government.
of learning the truth
What you believe is the truth, silly.

[Whisper]

Look at your hands. You still have webbed fingers like sea creatures do. Problem solved.

Thats weak, embarrassing and false

[INFERNO]

it is true and i beleve that we came from caveman,apes,missing link but i don't think we came from water

Why do you think we didn't come from water? If you believe we came from cavemen and such, then where did they come from? We may not have gills nor fins on us but there is evidence to suggest that tetrapods evolved from aquatic organisms, went on land and so forth. But why does coming from water seem so wrong to you?

After all, since you did claim to learn every single bit of evolution, then you must have some very good rationale to disbelieve that humans came from water. But I wonder, do you also disbelieve other organisms came from water?

I think that evolution must be taught in schools. It;s not just some possibility, it is a fact. it has been scientifically proven. I think that it is absolutely ridiculous to allow parents to pull their children out of learning the truth.

It's not a fact, it's a scientific theory, which by definition, has to be falsifiable, and it has not been proven correct nor proven false. So that dismisses the underlined part.

The parents can pull their kids out if they wish. It's their kids, why should they not be allowed to say what the kid can and cannot learn? As for "the truth", it has not been proven true so it cannot be considered a "truth" by traditional definitions. The idea of "truth" varies, for some it can be a religion for others it can be a scientific theory. If the parents are not allowed to say what their kids can and cannot learn, then who has the say?

If evolution is to be taught in schools, then I think it's only fair to allow all religions to be taught. I'm not calling evolution a religion by any means but rather that science it is used heavily in god vs. science debates, it seems rather silly to only teach one side of it and ignore the other views or paradigms. If we want kids to be open-minded, then teach evolution but also teach religions.

[Sage]

Wrong.

Wrong. Scientific theories are based on observable facts.

Wrong.

Wrong. As said before, the theory of evolution (as all theories) is based on obserable facts and at the moment is the best and most likely explanation concerning the diversity of life on earth.

The child belongs to the parent, not the government.

Wrong. Unless a child is put into a private or homeschooling arrangement, public education is compulsory and science class (up to a certain grade level) is a mandatory subject.

What you believe is the truth, silly.

Wrong. Would it be reasonable to pull my child out of physics because I believe in the alternate theory that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is really holding us all down with his great invisible noodley appendages?

You teach science in a science class. Just as they were many years ago, people in science classrooms taught the theories that seemed to be the best explanation of things at the time. Evidence at the moment in various fields points to evolution being the very most likely cause of diversity on earth and is at the base of biology and modern medicine as we know today.

Is evolution infallable? Of course not. Does it have a few flaws? Sure. All theories do. Does a single flaw make the existing mounds of evidence worthless? No.

If you've a problem with evolution being taught in a science class, would you care to provide an alternate theory that can be scientifically viewed, based on facts, and has applications in the real world?

I look forward to hearing your rebuttal, good sir.

[marty]

@ mindforte, i've seen experiments done that prove evolution.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Thats weak, embarrassing and false

It was a quick response, and absolutely true. Vestigial features? You appendix is the most commonly mentioned vestigial organ, and some babies are (in rare cases) born with a tail. The small webbing of our fingers (i.e. between the thumb and index finger) is yet another small sign of a vestigial trait, which links to our water-dwelling ancestors. He couldn't see how we came from "the water" and there's a small example of our link to the ocean. Calm down.

[punkjake]

It was a quick response, and absolutely true. Vestigial features? You appendix is the most commonly mentioned vestigial organ, and some babies are (in rare cases) born with a tail. The small webbing of our fingers (i.e. between the thumb and index finger) is yet another small sign of a vestigial trait, which links to our water-dwelling ancestors. He couldn't see how we came from "the water" and there's a small example of our link to the ocean. Calm down.


i belevie what i want

[INFERNO]

i've seen experiments done that prove evolution.

You're missing the point that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. You may have seen experiments that show the phenomenon of evolution happening as being true but not the theory of it as being true.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

i belevie what i want

Okay, believing what you want to believe doesn't make it any more of an accurate description of what reality actually is.

[MisterMonster]

Evolution is the best idea about how life came to Earth. The Earth is definately definately (almost) definately not 6000 years old. More like 4 billion, so i don't know how creationism can be proved. Evolution does not have many holes in it. It has some, but then we don't even know how our brain works that well.

Evolution should definately be taught in schools. In Brtain is is compulosory. It takes up about 2 chapters in our Biology text book. Even if you have the pope as your father (which, you know, probably wouldn't have) you would still have to take it.

[Whisper]

I went to a catholic homeschool and they taught evolution in great detail especially in grade 11 biology.

[Sage]

Even if you have the pope as your father (which, you know, probably wouldn't have) you would still have to take it.

I think the Pope announced he accepts evolution, actually.

[INFERNO]

Evolution is the best idea about how life came to Earth.

Stop right there. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life got on Earth but rather it attempts to explain how life evolved on Earth.


The Earth is definately definately (almost) definately not 6000 years old. More like 4 billion, so i don't know how creationism can be proved. Evolution does not have many holes in it. It has some, but then we don't even know how our brain works that well.

One more definately perhaps :lol:? It's a theory, it will have flaws by definition. I don't know why you want to restate part of the definition of a scientific theory.

Now you're seeming like you're going to mix science with religion in the hopes of proving a religious belief wrong. Let me spare you the time and effort: don't do it unless you plan to fall flat on your face.


Evolution should definately be taught in schools. In Brtain is is compulosory. It takes up about 2 chapters in our Biology text book. Even if you have the pope as your father (which, you know, probably wouldn't have) you would still have to take it.

Why should it be taught? You made the statement that it should but didn't explain why.

[MisterMonster]

Stop right there. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life got on Earth but rather it attempts to explain how life evolved on Earth.

Oh God. I'm sorry. Thats what i meant though...


One more definately perhaps ? It's a theory, it will have flaws by definition. I don't know why you want to restate part of the definition of a scientific theory.

Now you're seeming like you're going to mix science with religion in the hopes of proving a religious belief wrong. Let me spare you the time and effort: don't do it unless you plan to fall flat on your face

NOO!!! Grr... okay. let me explain. I believe God Made the big bang happen, in turn creating the Earth and all the other planets and stars. I belive he made the biological soup that evolved into the varied biological structures we see on Earth today. I don't believe that He created humans staright away though.Hey, maybe i will fall flat on my face (i probably will) but thats what i believe ^^

And i think it should be taught because Darwin is lovely. And because it explains a lot.

Mahh!!! You made me feel small!!

[Sage]

NOO!!! Grr... okay. let me explain. I believe God Made the big bang happen, in turn creating the Earth and all the other planets and stars. I belive he made the biological soup that evolved into the varied biological structures we see on Earth today. I don't believe that He created humans staright away though. Hey, maybe i will fall flat on my face (i probably will)

Theistic Evolution is an exceedingly silly compromise if you ask me. Science and religion both provide completely different answers, and thinking of a way to combine them is just nonsensical. Saying God is responsible for evolution is like saying pixies are responsible for electricity and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for gravity by holding us down with his great noodley appendages.

[INFERNO]

Oh God. I'm sorry. Thats what i meant though...

That may not have been what you meant but that's what you said. However, you can correct your statements any time you wish in a new post.


NOO!!! Grr... okay. let me explain. I believe God Made the big bang happen, in turn creating the Earth and all the other planets and stars. I belive he made the biological soup that evolved into the varied biological structures we see on Earth today. I don't believe that He created humans staright away though.

Interesting, so you're taking the stance that god made certain scientific theories occur. This is sounding awfully similar to theistic evolution.


Hey, maybe i will fall flat on my face (i probably will) but thats what i believe ^^

By falling flat on your face, I meant analyzing religion with science or science with religion. Combining the two may also lead you to falling flat on your face since you greatly risk butchering up both science and religion (or perhaps only one of them). Believe what you want though, it's completely up to you. You can believe that Lord Pepsi made the earth and universe and I wouldn't stop you from believing in it.


And i think it should be taught because Darwin is lovely. And because it explains a lot.

Darwin is lovely? I'm not sure in what sense you're referring to by "lovely". Scientific theories explain things, that's what they're supposed to do, so saying that the theory of evolution explains things or as you put it, saying they explain a lot is not a very good answer.


Mahh!!! You made me feel small!!

:lol::yeah::lol: