Eleven Fla Counties forbid teaching of Evolution

[scooterbug44]

I personally have trouble with the complete theory of evolution. I believe that species adapt and evolve within themselves--humans are getting taller, for instance--but I do not believe that we have sufficient evidence to believe that humans evolved from apes. There is no missing link, and that part is as much a fairy tale to me as a giant spider with the world on its back. The theory stretches the credibility of what has been factually proven. (By the time Darwin died, he had recanted the theory about the apes.) Quite honestly, ID's theory makes more sense to me logically.

I don't necessarily believe that my greatx800 grandma was a chimp, but I do believe there is common ancestry and science has proven there is a great deal of similarity in our DNA - 95% or so.

If you don't believe in evolution, how do you explain all of the various fossils we have found? Homo habilis, neanderthal, etc.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I have no problem with a teacher who teaches the facts--the proven laws of science. I also have no problem with a teacher who presents the theories, saying, "Here is what we have evidence for; this is true. Here is what we don't know. Here are some ideas about what we think may have happened, and here is evidence or lack thereof for those theories." That teacher will teach my child to think critically, and I'm all for it.

:roll: same here.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Did any of you see the young girl who had four legs and four arms? I think she was in India. In theory, she redefined Homo Sapien. She couldn't walk and was having surgery to remove the additional limbs, so that she would be "normal." Now she was a case where a gene clicked a little differently from the norm, and she physically had eight limbs, but her body had not adapted to having the extra limbs. What happens if she hooks up with a six limbed person and they create offspring which are able to adapt and use these extra limbs? We outcast people who are "different," rather than embracing change. Sometimes, I see us preserving that which is, but we have to question the opportunity costs of something else coming about from that change. It's a tough balance.

Back in college, a friend of mine, whom I haven't seen since, was a genetic research biologist. His work was with chickens, and he was working with trying to identify genetic properties. I never saw his actual work, but some of the things he says they were doing included trying to make four legged chickens in order to identify which gene determined the number of legs. Science is filled with some interesting craziness.

 

[Teresa]

I have known lots of science teachers--including the head of the science department at one college--who are qualified to teach ID.

I just cannot imagine this to be true in our public elementary schools. maybe I am wrong. once again, I will state my feelings on teaching a christian based "story" - no thanks. and story is all it is, though it does take from science what it deems convenient, and doesn't threaten their belief system...



I have no problem with a teacher who teaches the facts--the proven laws of science (I hope not). I also have no problem with a teacher who presents the theories, saying, "Here is what we have evidence for; this is true. Here is what we don't know. Here are some ideas about what we think may have happened, and here is evidence or lack thereof for those theories." That teacher will teach my child to think critically, and I'm all for it.

Nohall, I have said many times above that a good teacher will teach a child to think critically by teaching the scientific theory and facts as we know it today, plus a good review of alternative evolution belief "stories" - and I'm not talking about ID, I'm talking about any of the stories that have been proposed. but teaching the details of these stories is best left to philosophy, sunday school, etc.

the thing with ID that really creeps me out is that someone is choosing which scientific evidences they like, rearranging facts and theories, as needed to fit their religious belief system. they are taking science and twisting it around and adding crap to it. why? because for some reason, they are fearful. for some reason they are threatened by scientific truth. it may undermine their church! OMG!!! but, of course science does not care about their church, and it doesn't discriminate against them or any group.


the scientist does not think like this, thank God. the scientist looks for truth, and is not influenced by any group. why can't we accept the truths uncovered by science and be grateful for them? scientific discovery does nothing to undermine God. in fact, science advances mankind's understanding of all things, and through discovery we can more deeply appreciate the awesomeness of a most magnificent God. Science can be accepted as truth by people from all faiths, countries, cultures, etc. it does not serve christians. it serves all.

 

[Teresa]

ID and evangelical Christianity are way too intimately connected for me to be comfortable with anybody being able to successfully teach the concept in public school without a Christian slant.

and this here is my question. is a science teacher really taught ID in college, and thus qualified to deliver this idea to children? I am seriously curious.

do we still have science teachers?

 

[NoHall]

I don't necessarily believe that my greatx800 grandma was a chimp, but I do believe there is common ancestry and science has proven there is a great deal of similarity in our DNA - 95% or so.

If you don't believe in evolution, how do you explain all of the various fossils we have found? Homo habilis, neanderthal, etc.

I don't believe that the homo habilis, neanderthal, etc. come directly from apes. We have found no link between them. We share a lot of DNA with a lot of mammals, but that doesn't mean we descended from dolphins, either.

Nohall, I have said many times above that a good teacher will teach a child to think critically by teaching the scientific theory and facts as we know it today, plus a good review of alternative evolution belief "stories" - and I'm not talking about ID, I'm talking about any of the stories that have been proposed. but teaching the details of these stories is best left to philosophy, sunday school, etc.

the thing with ID that really creeps me out is that someone is choosing which scientific evidences they like, rearranging facts and theories, as needed to fit their religious belief system. they are taking science and twisting it around and adding crap to it. why? because for some reason, they are fearful. for some reason they are threatened by scientific truth. it may undermine their church! OMG!!! but, of course science does not care about their church, and it doesn't discriminate against them or any group.


the scientist does not think like this, thank God. the scientist looks for truth, and is not influenced by any group. why can't we accept the truths uncovered by science and be grateful for them? scientific discovery does nothing to undermine God. in fact, science advances mankind's understanding of all things, and through discovery we can more deeply appreciate the awesomeness of a most magnificent God. Science can be accepted as truth by people from all faiths, countries, cultures, etc. it does not serve christians. it serves all.

You and I are really on the same page, when it comes down to it.

The ID teachers I know don't think the way you describe, either. The facts aren't rearranged at all. The only difference is this: instead of believing that it came about by happenstance, it came about by design. As someone who believes in an intelligent designer, I don't dispute the method. Heck, evolution itself doesn't scare me as a Christian, and doesn't conflict with what I believe the Bible says about creation. (Go ahead--ask me. ) I just don't buy it based on what we have and don't have, and I simply don't believe that any of it was accidental.

I mentioned that one of the professors I knew was a Christian and the department chair of the science department. He told me that the more he studied science and saw the perfection of how it functioned, the more he believed that it had to be intelligently designed. It was too perfect to be an accident.

 

[NoHall]

and this here is my question. is a science teacher really taught ID in college, and thus qualified to deliver this idea to children? I am seriously curious.

do we still have science teachers?

I'll try to get an answer for you from the science ed people at school. I only know that they are taught methods of teaching science--how to conduct an experiment, how to observe reactions/results, critical thinking, etc. I don't know what they teach about teaching theories. I'll ask if anyone in my class is a science person, and if not, I'll email the head of the department.

 

[Teresa]

I don't believe that the homo habilis, neanderthal, etc. come directly from apes. We have found no link between them. We share a lot of DNA with a lot of mammals, but that doesn't mean we descended from dolphins, either.



You and I are really on the same page, when it comes down to it.

The ID teachers I know don't think the way you describe, either. The facts aren't rearranged at all. The only difference is this: instead of believing that it came about by happenstance, it came about by design. As someone who believes in an intelligent designer, I don't dispute the method. Heck, evolution itself doesn't scare me as a Christian, and doesn't conflict with what I believe the Bible says about creation. (Go ahead--ask me. ) I just don't buy it based on what we have and don't have, and I simply don't believe that any of it was accidental.

I mentioned that one of the professors I knew was a Christian and the department chair of the science department. He told me that the more he studied science and saw the perfection of how it functioned, the more he believed that it had to be intelligently designed. It was too perfect to be an accident.

we may be on the same page as far as what should be presented in the classroom. but, it seems we are at extreme ends of the ID debate. which is certainly just fine and dandy - I suppose we shall get past it!

I guess what I am really trying to say is this: Intelligent Design is just a term that was used to replace "creation science", for political reasons (as an attempt to get into the classroom as a serious evolution theory, after a series of local and federal court cases, etc etc - long time line of laughable events). Whenever I hear about christian groups pushing for ID, I just cringe. Let them believe what the hail they want to believe - I really do not care. But back away from our education and science programs. Leave it to the pros. Take it from the Pope - a pretty big christian who doesn't even feel the need to define creation. Scientists know their stuff. They are truly not interested in the agenda of the evangelist, or any other group. They have serious work to do.

that's just my opinion of course. and maybe not even a well informed one. But, I have read the stuff over the years, and listened to the ridiculous claims to science by ID. I do not buy it.

Nohall - no one said that evolution theory was a completely formulated theory and fact. but, its the best we got. by far. the evidence is definitely there to make the basis of evolution theory scientific and factual.



The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

??Creation science? has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage?good teaching?than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise??

Stephen Jay Gould, palentologist and educator, harvard university

 

[Bob]

I'm having trouble with the Ark, and the Virgin birth, but I'm not fighting with the church about what's being taught in Sunday school.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Bob, I, too, am having trouble with the Ark, but, as I previously stated, I think it would be easy enough for a virgin to give birth.