[Arexytece]

MAN this really gets me irritated:



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...EyMEI&refer=us



For a religion in which their own SAVIOR, Son of frigging GOD no less, uses metaphors and analogies to teach his followers the lessons of life, why are people so frigging opposed to evolution? (Saying that creationisim is not a story.....)



I like to say "how frigging stupid are they?"



But I know that already, and it scares me.



Technological Dark Age in T-Minus 12 years.

[Klissineopar]

All they are teaching is that doubt exists with the Theory of Evolution. This is true, there is doubt about it's validity, it has not been proven. Even Darwin admitted it. That is why he called it a THEORY.

[auctionlover]

All they are teaching is that doubt exists with the Theory of Evolution. This is true, there is doubt about it's validity, it has not been proven. Even Darwin admitted it. That is why he called it a THEORY.

Oh you do not know.

They are trying to state it as if the theory is nothing but an idea, and that other ideas such as creative design are ranked as equal to it merely because they both are not 100% proven.

The thing is, there is no way to DISPROVE a theory when you put a rule on it like "this is how it happened, but you can't see it until you are dead".

That just does not stack up with science.



BTW, you know Relativity is just a theory too, and Gravity. AAMOF, 99% of all science is just theory. That is the one thing that makes science different than religion.

People in science will, albeit begrudgingly, admit to their own favored theory not being the best fit. In religion, it is heresy to question the rule of God.


The thing that annoys me about this is not that these guys are saying that it should be taught as a theory, that may not be 100% on the mark, but introducing these other "theories" that are not based on anything that can, or has been proven.

Just because you cannot say with absolute certainty with fossilized and DNA evidence. Hell, eyewitness accounts why dont you, that we all came from the same basic starting point does not mean that pigs can fly.

[TriamiCaw]

The confusion displayed in your post shows the failure of the education system, not the lack of validity regarding Darwin and evolution.

All they are teaching is that doubt exists with the Theory of Evolution.

Do you really believe that is ALL they are "teaching" with their mumbo-jumbo?

... there is doubt about it's validity, it has not been proven.

Wrong -- it has not been DIS-Proven (see below). Ergo it stands.

Even Darwin admitted it. That is why he called it a THEORY.

Hopefully you understand the use of the term "theory" within the scientific realm differs from the general usage of the same word.

In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.

Theories start out with empirical observations such as "sometimes water turns into ice." At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations.


In scientific usage, theory is not the opposite of fact. Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, usually after the fact that they happen is no longer in scientific dispute. In referring to the "theory of global warming", for example, there is no implication that global warming is not occurring; world temperatures have been measured and are increasing. The "theory of global warming" refers instead to scientific work that explains how and why this has been happening.

In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.

[gedsiz]

PS: "Intelligent Design" **cough** meets NONE of the established criteria to be labeled as scientific theory.

[gortusbig]

PS: "Intelligent Design" **cough** meets NONE of the established criteria to be labeled as scientific theory.

Bill Nye said something funny about that this morning on the Morning Show on CBS (and Pat Robertson was on there too. Man I hate him!).

He said, paraphrased, 'You can say that my chair is the creator of the universe. That every six seconds it instantly expands out to the size of the whole universe and changes things, then contracts back again so fast that noone can see it'.

A scientific theory is not a statement that, by it's own assertions, cannot ever be proven or disproven.

[GooogleGuy]

What this discussion shows more than anything is the limitation of mankind to express ourselves (there is a reason that Darwin didn't call it the "Conjecture of Evolution" or the "Hypothesis of Evolution").

This confusion & limitation is clearly exhibited by the use of the same word (THEORY) to express contradictory conditions ...

THEORY

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
3. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

http://www.answers.com/topic/theory

[en-druzhba]

Fact:

A fact based on fact rather than fact.

[zueqhbyhp]

Bill Nye said something funny about that this morning on the Morning Show on CBS (and Pat Robertson was on there too. Man I hate him!).

Interesting pairing: Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and Pat Robertson "The Anything-but-science Guy"!

[Mehntswx]

Fact:

A fact based on fact rather than fact.

"It's twue because I says so" (Elmer Fudd)

[JimmyHas]

Yeah, this is why I'm Pastafarian

[AlabamaBoyz]

Lookit them Meatballs!!!!!

(Ironic, eh?)

[LongaDonga]

Yeah, this is why I'm Pastafarian

I hear they've added this to the high school curriculum in Kansas.

[CuittisIL]

All they are teaching is that doubt exists with the Theory of Evolution. This is true, there is doubt about it's validity, it has not been proven. Even Darwin admitted it. That is why he called it a THEORY.

People who call the theory of evolution "just a theory" belittle the very nature of a scientific theory. A theory involves a tried-and-true hypothesis which has enough evidence to support it that it can be accepted as a possible truth. Keep in mind that the theory of gravity is "just a theory".

Creationism and intelligent design are not even theories by comparison because they are not even hypotheses, and do not have much scientific evidence to support them, if any.

In any case, I don't believe in either evolution nor intelligent design.

I believe in the theory that life as we know it first came about when Gil Gerard built a time machine, went back to the Hadean Eon, and ejaculated into the primordial ooze.

[Wxrxnhar]

They rank right up there with the "what ifs" from the comic books.


What if we are just planted life forms from an alien race that wanted to terraform the planet for future colonization?

[VastDrura]

considering a report on French television, two documentary, one on the "Creationist" and one on a judge who wanted to replace the loies by the ten commands. when is it really? the "creationist" does it become so popular? that made fear

[agildeta]

...that made fear

Be afraid ... be very afraid !!

Something like 55% of Americans literally believe (and therefore reject any scientific basis for other possibilities) that this old guy with a white beard created the world and man in 6 days some 6,000 years ago.

[Discus]

Be afraid ... be very afraid !!

Something like 55% of Americans literally believe (and therefore reject any scientific basis for other possibilities) that this old guy with a white beard created the world and man in 6 days some 6,000 years ago.

And since he is omnipotent, he made all this fake history up (like the whole thing with Sumeria, and the fossils, and oil) to keep us busy on this big dietal anthill we call Earth.


The one thing people do not believe is that just because more people believe in something to be true, it does not, in and of itself, make it true.

Most people believed the world was flat. Most believed we were the center of the universe. Most believed that sickness was caused by defilement of the humors and you needed to be bled to heal.

Thank GOD there were enough people that did not believe crap like that or we would still be stuck in the stone age.

[arriftell]

And then there is Pennsylvania ...

Pennsylvania Voters Oust School Board

By MARTHA RAFFAELE,
Associated Press Writer
Wed Nov 9, 2:39 AM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/evolution...HE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Voters came down hard Tuesday on school board members who backed a statement on intelligent design being read in biology class, ousting eight Republicans and replacing them with Democrats who want the concept stripped from the science curriculum.

The election unfolded amid a landmark federal trial involving the Dover public schools and the question of whether intelligent design promotes the Bible's view of creation. Eight Dover families sued, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Dover's school board adopted a policy in October 2004 that requires ninth-graders to hear a prepared statement about intelligent design before learning about evolution in biology class.

Eight of the nine school board members were up for election Tuesday. They were challenged by a slate of Democrats who argued that science class was not the appropriate forum for teaching intelligent design.

"My kids believe in God. I believe in God. But I don't think it belongs in the science curriculum the way the school district is presenting it," said Jill Reiter, 41, a bank teller who joined a group of high school students waving signs supporting the challengers Tuesday.

A spokesman for the winning slate of candidates has said they wouldn't act hastily and would consider the outcome of the court case. The judge expects to rule by January; the new school board members will be sworn in Dec. 5.

School board member David Napierskie, who lost Tuesday, said the vote wasn't just about ideology.

"Some people felt intelligent design shouldn't be taught and others were concerned about having tax money spent on the lawsuit," he said.

Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some kind of higher force. The statement read to students says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps."

A similar controversy has erupted in Kansas, where the state Board of Education on Tuesday approved science standards for public schools that cast doubt on the theory of evolution. The 6-4 vote was a victory for intelligent design advocates who helped draft the standards.
___

[LorencoLoricelli]

All they are teaching is that doubt exists with the Theory of Evolution. This is true, there is doubt about it's validity, it has not been proven. Even Darwin admitted it. That is why he called it a THEORY.

They aren't just "teaching that doubt exists", they are also teaching this completely untested 'intelligent design' fairytale at the same time, giving it equal weight, and teaching it in a science class no less. In the scientific community it's not a choice between the two, only in the far-right Christian community.

There is no longer any doubt among scientists (and those who believe them) that species evolve - it can be demostrated today in the laboratory and the historical evidence is overwhelming. There are several theories about the mechanism of evolution; Darwin wasn't sure if his Natural Selection theory is how evolution works, but he and the rest of the scientists know that all species, including humans, evolve.

Apples might start to fall up instead of down one day, proving Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation incorrect, but nobody expects this possibility to get equal time in the classrooms.