MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Political/War Lounge (http://forums.macnn.com/political-war-lounge/)
-   -   Russia teen sues over evolution teaching (http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/321007/russia-teen-sues-over-evolution-teaching/)

 
Kevin Dec 16, 2006 10:38 AM
Russia teen sues over evolution teaching
Russia teen sues over evolution teaching - Yahoo! News

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia - A Russian court on Wednesday held hearings in an unprecedented lawsuit brought by a 15-year-old student who says being taught the theory of evolution in school violates her rights and insults her religious beliefs.

Maria Shreiber sued the St. Petersburg city education committee, claiming the 10th-grade biology textbook used at the Cervantes Gymnasium was offensive to believers and that teachers should offer an alternative to Darwin's famous theory.

"The biology textbook generally refers to religion and the existence of God in a negative way. It infringes on believers' rights," she said in comments carried by Russian television stations.


I guess it's just not "Only in America" now.

But this is the part that gets me

"School officials, meanwhile, were dismissive of the suit. Principal Andrei Polozov said he doubted Shreiber had "serious religions beliefs."

I think that's a bit condescending.

But good on the biology teacher for atleast admitting below.

"When starting the course on the matter, the biology teacher said that there are other versions of humanity's origin," she said.

My problem is, why don't they teach the other origins as well? Esp since a good percentage of the world does indeed grasp that belief.
 
TETENAL Dec 16, 2006 10:43 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3241417)
My problem is, why don't they teach the other origins as well? Esp since a good percentage of the world does indeed grasp that belief.
Because it's a biology class.
 
Kevin Dec 16, 2006 10:49 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by TETENAL (Post 3241418)
Because it's a biology class.
Lets take some time out and lets say hypothetically speaking it could be proven that God did indeed created this planet.

Studying biology would be simply studying his work.

Replace God with Big Bang.

Same thing.
 
TETENAL Dec 16, 2006 10:54 AM
If you want to see biology or physics as studying god's work, then that's fine. No scientist in the world would have a problem with that. But if you stop studying his work and start studying his book, it stops being science. That needs to be taught in another class.
 
Kevin Dec 16, 2006 11:21 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by TETENAL (Post 3241425)
If you want to see biology or physics as studying god's work, then that's fine. No scientist in the world would have a problem with that. But if you stop studying his work and start studying his book, it stops being science. That needs to be taught in another class.
No one is asking to study the religion. You can separate the story from the teachings.
 
Wiskedjak Dec 16, 2006 11:29 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3241420)
Lets take some time out and lets say hypothetically speaking it could be proven that God did indeed created this planet.
Except, of course, it can't be proven, by God's own design. His own fault, really.


Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3241420)
Studying biology would be simply studying his work.

Replace God with Big Bang.

Same thing.
How do we know it already isn't the same thing? The theory of evolution does not conflict with anything in the Bible. The only conflict is when the theorized process of evolution is extrapolated in an attempt to explain the origin of life.

When I took biology, we learned about evolution, but it was never used to explain the origin of life.
 
Ron Goodman Dec 16, 2006 11:30 AM
The story is part of the religion. It has no other reason to exist. There is certainly no basis for it in biology.
 
Kevin Dec 16, 2006 11:34 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Wiskedjak (Post 3241451)
How do we know it already isn't the same thing? The theory of evolution does not conflict with anything in the Bible. The only conflict is when the theorized process of evolution is extrapolated in an attempt to explain the origin of life.

When I took biology, we learned about evolution, but it was never used to explain the origin of life.
See we did. We got taught the Big Bang Theory. That it was one big cosmic mistake.

As far as the rest of your post. Makes sense and I agree.
 
Kevin Dec 16, 2006 11:35 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Ron Goodman (Post 3241453)
The story is part of the religion. It has no other reason to exist.
This is your personal belief.
 
TETENAL Dec 16, 2006 12:05 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3241443)
No one is asking to study the religion. You can separate the story from the teachings.
Other than religious teaching there is no hint whatsoever to "the story", only evidence against it. The only way "the story" can be taught in natural science is as false.
 
dcmacdaddy Dec 16, 2006 12:24 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Wiskedjak (Post 3241451)
How do we know it already isn't the same thing? The theory of evolution does not conflict with anything in the Bible. The only conflict is when the theorized process of evolution is extrapolated in an attempt to explain the origin of life.

When I took biology, we learned about evolution, but it was never used to explain the origin of life.

Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3241455)
See we did. We got taught the Big Bang Theory. That it was one big cosmic mistake.

As far as the rest of your post. Makes sense and I agree.
Umm Kev, you do realize the theory of evolution is NOT related to the theory of the Big Bang, right? So, why are you linking the two as if they are somehow conceptually or scientifically related?

One theory explains how life on Earth evolved (evolution)--Not I didn't say originated, just how life evolved--while the other theory explains how the Universe originated (Big Bang). The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with planet Earth or the rise of life, let alone human life, on planet Earth. It explains how the whole of the universe could have come into existence, of which one infinitesimally small part of that universe is our Solar System and planet Earth. But, even if theorists take the Big Bang theory down to the level of galaxy formation--the latter stages of universe formation in the Big Bang theory model fairly closely the stages of galaxy formation in typical single-star galaxies like our Solar System--it still doesn't account for creation of life in general, on individual planets, or on planet Earth in particular. So, I am confused why are you even mentioning the two separate ideas in the same sentence? What sort of linkage are you trying to establish between the two theories? They are not related to one another at all.
 
Ron Goodman Dec 16, 2006 12:27 PM
They are related to each other in that they both contradict various religious accounts of how the Earth and life on it came to be.
 
dcmacdaddy Dec 16, 2006 12:35 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Ron Goodman (Post 3241504)
They are related to each other in that they both contradict various religious accounts of how the Earth and life on it came to be.
Well, DUH . . . That goes without saying. Why would you even need to point out that fact? :confused:

There is an inseparable chasm between scientific ideas on life and religious ideas on life. These categories of ideas exist in separate intellectual frame-works; It is intellectually impossible to co-mingle the two with any level of logical consistency or coherency. But I don't think Kevvy was trying to suggest the two classes of ideas be inter-mingled in the classroom.

As least I don't think that was his intention. We'll have to wait until he replies to see if his opposition to the teaching of the theories of evolution and/or the Big Bang are because he thinks religious ideas should be taught in the classroom.
 
Gamoe Dec 16, 2006 12:44 PM
The Christian who believes evolution is in conflict with Christianity is sadly mistaken and needs an intensive course in the interpretation of symbolism.
 
ebuddy Dec 16, 2006 01:15 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3241417)
... and that teachers should offer an alternative to Darwin's famous theory.
This is the part that struck me. It's a science class. Science has no other alternatives to Darwin's famous theory.

Quote
"The biology textbook generally refers to religion and the existence of God in a negative way.
Now if this is the case, there certainly is cause for concern. I'd be curious to know exactly what aspects of religion and God are portrayed negatively. There's no reason religion and the existence of God need to be brought up in a negative way or really at all. Science should not concern religion so far as I know.

Quote
My problem is, why don't they teach the other origins as well? Esp since a good percentage of the world does indeed grasp that belief.
Without grabbing for the book of Genesis in their Bibles, what other alternatives could they be teaching? While I happen to appreciate some aspects of ID, it is far from anything other than an hypothesis at this point. To be clear, I teach my children that they ought to master the material being taught them in class and I will help them master tenets of the faith here at home and at our Church. If they at some point want to argue aspects of science or challenge others on their dogma (I find many who are compelled to defend science are less concerned about science than their personal philosophies; ideals they believe science affirms), they'd do well to understand what they're talking about.
 
Wiskedjak Dec 16, 2006 01:49 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Ron Goodman (Post 3241504)
They are related to each other in that they both contradict various religious accounts of how the Earth and life on it came to be.
Unless God used the Big Bang to create the Universe and Evolution to make His Creation adaptable to change.

The Bible does not explain the Physics of Creation nor the Science of Life.
 
Wiskedjak Dec 16, 2006 01:53 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 3241541)
Now if this is the case, there certainly is cause for concern. I'd be curious to know exactly what aspects of religion and God are portrayed negatively. There's no reason religion and the existence of God need to be brought up in a negative way or really at all. Science should not concern religion so far as I know.
I'd say the only negative aspects of religion that come to mind with Evolution is how the Church treated Darwin. But, that has more to do with man and Church, rather than religion and God. And, it certainly has nothing to do with Evolution.
 
SpaceMonkey Dec 16, 2006 02:04 PM
Evolution ≠ Darwinism ≠ The Big Bang
 
Chuckit Dec 16, 2006 02:06 PM
Please note the exact nature of the objection: She says science is offensive to her religion. This is not about competing scientific theories (there isn't any competing scientific theory here) — it's about a religious person not wanting to hear about science.

Just because some people believe something doesn't mean it should be taught in a science class — there's a lot more to science than that. For example, some people believe that rain is given by the spirits of nature as a reward for humans' piety. This does not, however, mean that rain dances and animal sacrifice should be taught in earth sciences classes. Alternatives should be presented if there are actually competing scientific theories, not just because some folks don't like to hear things they are predisposed to disagree with.
 
macintologist Dec 16, 2006 04:08 PM
Creationism was the norm in mainsream scientific thought before the 20th century. Advocating creationism is just taking a step back and reversing all the scientific progress being made in the field of historical biology.
 
- - e r i k - - Dec 17, 2006 06:12 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Chuckit (Post 3241589)
Please note the exact nature of the objection: She says science is offensive to her religion. This is not about competing scientific theories (there isn't any competing scientific theory here) — it's about a religious person not wanting to hear about science.
Bingo.

There is a competing alternative to Darwinism however. Or more accurately it was. The theory of heredity as coined by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck: the "inheritance of acquired traits."

Not that it's relevant today. Just nit-picking ;)
 
analogika Dec 17, 2006 06:21 AM
We learned about Lamarckism in biology.

What's fascinating is that there appear to be certain cases where individual traits or developed conditions can possibly actually affect several generations of offspring (there was a recent finding regarding nutrition of women during pregnancy resulting in a higher likelihood of diabetes in their grandchildren or somesuch IIRC).

It's not the (by today's standards) ridiculous "generations of giraffes had to stretch their necks to get at leaves, so the necks grew longer over time" Lamarckism, and it probably doesn't actually affect genetic makeup.
 
Doofy Dec 17, 2006 07:14 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Chuckit (Post 3241589)
Please note the exact nature of the objection: She says science is offensive to her religion.
No, she didn't. She said that the particular text book being used in class was offensive to her religion.

I'd have hoped that those defending science would be a little more accurate in their observations. :P
 
Kevin Dec 17, 2006 08:29 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy (Post 3241499)
Umm Kev, you do realize the theory of evolution is NOT related to the theory of the Big Bang, right? So, why are you linking the two as if they are somehow conceptually or scientifically related?
Yes I do. But they are usually taught together as one. Atleast in the states.
 
Kevin Dec 17, 2006 08:30 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Gabriel Morales (Post 3241516)
The Christian who believes evolution is in conflict with Christianity is sadly mistaken and needs an intensive course in the interpretation of symbolism.
I agree.
Quote, Originally Posted by macintologist (Post 3241669)
Creationism was the norm in mainsream scientific thought before the 20th century. Advocating creationism is just taking a step back and reversing all the scientific progress being made in the field of historical biology.
Subjective.
Quote, Originally Posted by Doofy (Post 3242048)
No, she didn't. She said that the particular text book being used in class was offensive to her religion.

I'd have hoped that those defending science would be a little more accurate in their observations. :P
:lol: pwnt
 
ebuddy Dec 17, 2006 09:03 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Wiskedjak (Post 3241578)
I'd say the only negative aspects of religion that come to mind with Evolution is how the Church treated Darwin.
How did the Church treat Darwin? Had Darwin not said any "damnable" things about religion and faith? How would you expect the Church to treat Darwin?

It would be one thing to mention the Churches' distaste for Darwin, did they also mention the scientific communities' distaste for Darwin? Folks like Louis Agassiz who accused some of Darwin's works as "truly monstrous"? It would be entirely negligent, one-sided and in fact, offensive to bring up the Church in this manner with regards to science and not bring up science itself.
 
Wiskedjak Dec 17, 2006 09:16 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 3242078)
How did the Church treat Darwin? Had Darwin not said any "damnable" things about religion and faith? How would you expect the Church to treat Darwin?

It would be one thing to mention the Churches' distaste for Darwin, did they also mention the scientific communities' distaste for Darwin? Folks like Louis Agassiz who accused some of Darwin's works as "truly monstrous"? It would be entirely negligent, one-sided and in fact, offensive to bring up the Church in this manner with regards to science and not bring up science itself.
Exactly my point.

Perhaps I should have said "I'd say the only negative aspects of religion that come to mind with how some argue Evolution is how the Church treated Darwin."
 
ebuddy Dec 17, 2006 09:29 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Wiskedjak (Post 3242086)
Exactly my point.

Perhaps I should have said "I'd say the only negative aspects of religion that come to mind with how some argue Evolution is how the Church treated Darwin."
:thumbsup: I stand corrected sir.
 
Ron Goodman Dec 17, 2006 10:10 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3242066)
Yes I do. But they are usually taught together as one. Atleast in the states.
They are usually attacked together by the fundies because they contradict Genesis. Past an eighth grade general science class I've never heard of them being taught together.
 
analogika Dec 17, 2006 03:10 PM
Neither have I.

Physics and Biology are generally taught as completely separate units, if not separate classes.
 
Kevin Dec 17, 2006 03:15 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Ron Goodman (Post 3242103)
because they contradict Genesis.
Actually they don't
Quote
Past an eighth grade general science class I've never heard of them being taught together.
I have.
 
analogika Dec 17, 2006 03:17 PM
Mentioned or taught?

In science or religious classes? (i.e. what kind of school?)
 
dcmacdaddy Dec 17, 2006 06:03 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy (Post 3241499)
Umm Kev, you do realize the theory of evolution is NOT related to the theory of the Big Bang, right? So, why are you linking the two as if they are somehow conceptually or scientifically related?
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3242066)
Yes I do. But they are usually taught together as one. Atleast in the States.
Really? Are you perhaps taking a personal example and extrapolating it to apply to the whole spectrum of science education in the [United] States?

Because, I can't imagine too many biology classes teaching cosmology nor can I imagine that too many earth science classes--where the topic of earth origins usually appears as part of a science curriculum--would be teaching human biological evolution as a companion topic to earth origins. Neither the National Science Teacher's Association position on science standards in the classroom, nor the actual National Science Education Standards, as promulgated by the National Academy of Sciences, mention teaching cosmic origins and human evolution in the same class. So, what evidence do you have to make this claim that the theory of evolution and the theory of the Big Bang "are usually taught together as one"?
 
Kevin Dec 17, 2006 07:50 PM
I never said that there was biology classes teaching it. I said I was taught it. I never said what class, what grade. Etc. That is irrelevant. And it's just a smoke-screen used by those with no argument.

Cut it out.
 
dcmacdaddy Dec 17, 2006 08:39 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3242530)
I never said that there was biology classes teaching it. I said I was taught it. I never said what class, what grade. Etc. That is irrelevant. And it's just a smoke-screen used by those with no argument.

Cut it out.
While all the defensiveness, Kev. I just asked some questions. And how is any of this discussion "just a smoke-screen", and what would it be used for? I am not following your logic here with these statements you just made. In other words, how would my present line of reasoning and discussion be used as a smoke-screen to avoid some other topic of discussion (the teaching together of the Big Bang theory and evolution). And if it was being used as a smoke-screen "by those with no argument" what would be an indicator of their lack of having an argument? In other words, what criteria are you using to determine if someone in this discussion does or does not have a logical argument to make? How would the questions I have been asking, questions of specificity, be irrelevant when they are enquiring about a claim you made regarding something happening "here in the states"?

You are correct that which class or grade you were given this "lesson" in is irrelevant. The lessons is logically false whether it is taught in a science class or a gym class. I am just wondering in what classroom context you were taught lessons about cosmology along with lessons about human evolutionary history. I assumed it was in a science class but that really doesn't matter. Of course, if you had heard this message in a science class you should have been concerned. If you had heard this message in an English or Social Studies class then you should have just ignored it as someone talking out of their depth.

But, you have confirmed that what "you" experienced as an individual you took to be representative of the whole when you made your point about the conflagration of subjects (Big Bang and evoliution) being "usually taught together as one . . . here in the states". So, I guess this tangential part of the debate can come to an end. The general supposition you put forward--that Big Bang and evolution theory are taught together in [schools] "here in the states"--is not based on logically sound assumptions (i.e.: the experience of one member of a group cannot be assumed to be typical of most or all members of a group).
 
Kevin Dec 17, 2006 08:58 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy (Post 3242578)
While all the defensiveness, Kev.
Because you were putting words in my mouth? Don't do it and I wont get defensive. Being defense in itself isn't a bad thing.
Quote
I just asked some questions. And how is any of this discussion "just a smoke-screen", and what would it be used for? I am not following your logic here with these statements you just made.
It was just a diversion.

Where I heard it, when I heard it, etc is irrelevant. It's an attempt to attack the poster and not the message.

Again, cut it out.
 
dcmacdaddy Dec 17, 2006 09:55 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3242597)
Because you were putting words in my mouth? Don't do it and I wont get defensive. Being defense in itself isn't a bad thing.

It was just a diversion.

Where I heard it, when I heard it, etc is irrelevant. It's an attempt to attack the poster and not the message.

Again, cut it out.
Wow, you ARE super-defensive. What gives?
<Eric Cartman>
Got some sand in your vagina?
</Eric Cartman>

Anyway, I think the accepted practice in the United States is to NOT teach the Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution in the same class, certainly not past the elementary level grades. (Do kids even learn about these specific concepts in the K-6 grades in school or is it just general ideas/principles?)


And, getting back on topic, as to why the school doesn't teach "other versions of humanity's origins" in the biology class-room, there aren't any other sound scientific theories, besides Lamarckism or perhaps Mendeleevism--both have major weakness when compared to Darwinism--that can come close to being as broad and encompassing an explanation of changes in the human species over time as Darwinian evolution.

This is a biology class the girl is taking. If she wants to know about other, non-scientific theories for the origins of human life she can learn them in other, non-science classes. But, she seems to be missing a fundamental point here by asking to have non-scientific ideas taught in a science class: It is logically inconsistent not too mention academically un-sound. By all means, let her learn about different theories of human origins and/or human-development-through-time in school. Learning such ideas would broaden the intellectual horizons and expand the general-knowledge base for this girl and all her peers. Just do it in a class where it is appropriate to do so.
 
mania Dec 17, 2006 10:33 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3241417)
My problem is, why don't they teach the other origins as well? Esp since a good percentage of the world does indeed grasp that belief.
What exactly do you want them to teach? Genesis? Native American beliefs? Hinduism?

Let me guess. Genesis. being raised up Christian it took me A LONG TIME to realize that Genesis is wrong. I am a bit angry about the whole thing although I am still a Christian. She needs to learn the truth - it will set her free.
 
Wiskedjak Dec 17, 2006 10:35 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3242597)
It's an attempt to attack the poster and not the message.
Usually, you are right about ad hominems. But, this time, you are wrong.

You made a claim: "they [Big Bang and Evolutionary theories] are usually taught together as one. At least in the States.". And now you are being questioned as to the circumstances of that claim. That is not a personal attack. You are being asked to defend your claim.
 
Kevin Dec 17, 2006 10:41 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy (Post 3242640)
I think the accepted practice in the United States is to NOT teach the Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution in the same class, certainly not past the elementary level grades. (Do kids even learn about these specific concepts in the K-6 grades in school or is it just general ideas/principles?)
Again irrelevant when or where it's taught. It was when *I* went to school, and they are still teaching it in science class. Not going into specifics but they are teaching it.

Not that this has ANYTHING to do with my post.
 
Kevin Dec 17, 2006 10:42 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by mania (Post 3242671)
What exactly do you want them to teach? Genesis? Native American beliefs? Hinduism?
Actually I would be happy if they just taught evolution and creationism as concepts without even bringing the bible out.
 
Kevin Dec 17, 2006 10:44 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Wiskedjak (Post 3242673)
Usually, you are right about ad hominems. But, this time, you are wrong.

You made a claim: "they [Big Bang and Evolutionary theories] are usually taught together as one. At least in the States.". And now you are being questioned as to the circumstances of that claim. That is not a personal attack. You are being asked to defend your claim.
My statement was explaining dc as to why I put them together. Instead of arguing that, he attacked my credibility as to what I said. And is now making "sand in vagina" comments.... So yeah.


oldschool dc
 
turtle777 Dec 17, 2006 10:46 PM
Isn't it great how Russia adopts all the good traits of Amaraca ? :rolleyes:

-t
 
Wiskedjak Dec 17, 2006 10:47 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3242679)
Again irrelevant when or where it's taught. It was when *I* went to school, and they are still teaching it in science class. Not going into specifics but they are teaching it.
So, what you really meant to say was "they [Big Bang and Evolutionary theories] are usually taught together as one. At least in the school I went to when I went to school."?
 
Kevin Dec 17, 2006 10:47 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by what_the_heck (Post 3242685)
Isn't it great how Russia adopts all the good traits of Amaraca ? :rolleyes:
You mean human nature? This isn't a America thing. No need to be xenophobic.
 
Kevin Dec 17, 2006 10:49 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Wiskedjak (Post 3242689)
So, what you really meant to say was "they [Big Bang and Evolutionary theories] are usually taught together as one. At least in the school I went to when I went to school."?
And the same school is still teaching it. How do I know? Bekah's daughter is learning about it right now. Why do you think a lot people believe Evolution = Big Bang theory as well? Because when they get taught about it, it all gets lumped together.

So can we get back to the discussion now? Or am I going to have to continue to defend myself from being "discredited" ?
 
dcmacdaddy Dec 17, 2006 10:50 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3242682)
Actually I would be happy if they just taught evolution and creationism as concepts without even bringing the bible out.
But why do you want creationism taught in a science class? It is a religious explanation for the origins of life and as such cannot be discussed scientifically in any way possible. Or, are you advocating teaching evolution in science class and creationism in a different class? I can't see how it is possible to teach a fundamentally un-scientific concept in a science class--if creationism can't be subject to investigation by the scientific method it is fundamentally un-scientific--with any sort of academic robustness, let alone logical coherency.

So, how would you propose teaching both "evolution and creationism" in school? Would it be in the same class or different classes? At what grade level (elementary, intermediate, secondary) would it be taught? Also, how do you think it would be possible to teach creationism without "bringing the bible out"? Creationism is a Christian-specific teaching, so, it would seem to me that at some point a teacher would have to make reference to the Bible, even if it was just the first couple chapters of Genesis.
 
Kevin Dec 17, 2006 10:53 PM
UM dc there are many people that aren't even religious that believe in a greater power that created everything. You realize this right?

They thumb their noses up at the Bible, but are theists.

Believing a greater being created us does not = Christianity.

Studying that theory in a non-religious atmosphere would indeed be science. Like it or not, admit it or not.

Man's search for God is a science in its own.

I think you are just being a tad closed minded because it doesn't fit YOUR beliefs.

The studying of the supernatural is indeed a science.
 
mania Dec 17, 2006 10:53 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3242682)
Actually I would be happy if they just taught evolution and creationism as concepts without even bringing the bible out.
The 'problem' with that is it can't be tested or proved. You can always say an all powerful being 'did something' to make us this way and it can never be proven or disproven. it really doesn't belong in the science class.

Should a linguistics class teach that languages all came from the tower of babel as an alternate theory of how languages developed?

Should physics class teach that in some cases you can walk on water?

Should chemistry teach that you can turn water into wine if necessary?
 
dcmacdaddy Dec 17, 2006 10:59 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3242684)
My statement was explaining dc as to why I put them together. Instead of arguing that, he attacked my credibility as to what I said. And is now making "sand in vagina" comments.... So yeah.

oldschool dc
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3242684)
And the same school is still teaching it. How do I know? Bekah's daughter is learning about it right now. Why do you think a lot people believe Evolution = Big Bang theory as well? Because when they get taught about it, it all gets lumped together.

So can we get back to the discussion?
Yes, but your statement was making a broad generalization about an idea that seemed to me, and others on here, to be not as general as you claimed it to be. Hence, the reason asking for justification for your claim. What it turns out is that your claim was based on your personal experience, and that of a friend's daughter, at your school. So, now it would seem we have one school teaching these ideas as one conflated subject. Would you still like to make the claim that is a general practice among schools across the "states"? If so, what evidence do you have to support that claim?

As to getting back to the discussion, when you replied to my post with the "sand in the vagina" comment--That's only from 2001, it's not really old-school now, is it?--you completely left out any response to my subsequent two paragraphs that began "And, getting back on topic . . . ". Would you mind getting "back to the discussion" now? I have made one other post specifically about the topic raised in the first post and hear you are still with your knickers in a twist. Let's call a truce and get back to arguing the merits of why or why not Darwinian evolution should be taught in a biology class.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:54 PM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2