[darcybaston]

Get THIS article :


Georgia Takes on 'Evolution'
By ANDREW JACOBS

Published: January 30, 2004

ATLANTA, Jan. 29 � A proposed set of guidelines for middle and high school science classes in Georgia has caused a furor after state education officials removed the word "evolution" and scaled back ideas about the age of Earth and the natural selection of species.

Educators across the state said that the document, which was released on the Internet this month, was a veiled effort to bolster creationism and that it would leave the state's public school graduates at a disadvantage.

"They've taken away a major component of biology and acted as if it doesn't exist," said David Bechler, who heads the biology department at Valdosta State University. "By doing this, we're leaving the public shortchanged of the knowledge they should have."

Although education officials said the final version would not be binding on teachers, its contents will ultimately help shape achievement exams. And in a state where religion-based concepts of creation are widely held, many teachers said a curriculum without mentioning "evolution" would make it harder to broach the subject in the classroom.

Georgia's schools superintendent, Kathy Cox, held a news conference near the Capitol on Thursday, a day after The Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an article about the proposed changes.

A handful of states already omit the word "evolution" from their teaching guidelines, and Ms. Cox called it "a buzz word that causes a lot of negative reaction." She added that people often associate it with "that monkeys-to-man sort of thing."

Still, Ms. Cox, who was elected to the post in 2002, said the concept would be taught, as well as "emerging models of change" that challenge Darwin's theories. "Galileo was not considered reputable when he came out with his theory," she said.

Much of the state's 800-page curriculum was adopted verbatim from the "Standards for Excellence in Education," an academic framework produced by the Council for Basic Education, a nonprofit group. But when it came to science, the Georgia Education Department omitted large chunks of material, including references to Earth's age and the concept that all organisms on Earth are related through common ancestry. "Evolution" was replaced with "changes over time," and in another phrase that referred to the "long history of the Earth," the authors removed the word "long." Many proponents of creationism say Earth is at most several thousand years old, based on a literal reading of the Bible.

Sarah L. Pallas, an associate professor of biology at Georgia State University, said, "The point of these benchmarks is to prepare the American work force to be scientifically competitive." She said, "By removing the benchmarks that deal with evolutionary life, we don't have a chance of catching up to the rest of the world."

The guidelines, which were adopted by a panel of 25 educators, will be officially adopted in 90 days, and Ms. Cox said the public could still influence the final document. "If the teachers and parents across the state say this isn't what we want," she said, "then we'll change it."

In the past, Ms. Cox, has not masked her feelings on the matter of creationism versus evolution. During her run for office, Ms. Cox congratulated parents who wanted Christian notions of Earth and human creation to be taught in schools.

"I'd leave the state out of it and would make sure teachers were well prepared to deal with competing theories," she said at a public debate.

Educators say the current curriculum is weak in biology, leading to a high failure rate in the sciences among high school students across the state. Even those who do well in high school science are not necessarily proficient in the fundamentals of biology, astronomy and geology, say some educators.

David Jackson, an associate professor at the University of Georgia who trains middle school science teachers, said about half the students entering his class each year had little knowledge of evolutionary theory.

From the New York Times

[quandarry]

i guess all of us didn't evolve...my neighbour...

[boots]

:shakes head:

Sigh.

People without a clue dictating what information can and can not be discussed.

Sigh.

:shakes head:

[Cipher13]

I once said that if I could pick a US state to be completely obliderated, it would be Georgia.

I stand by that.

Additionally, stupid people should be shot. I would do the honours myself.

These people are ****ing idiots and do not deserve to ****ing live.

Fools.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
I once said that if I could pick a US state to be completely obliderated, it would be Georgia.

I stand by that.

Additionally, stupid people should be shot. I would do the honours myself.

These people are ****ing idiots and do not deserve to ****ing live.

Fools.

No worries, evolution will take care of them...

[Spheric Harlot]

next up:

Witch trials.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by darcybaston:
Get THIS article :


Georgia Takes on 'Evolution'
By ANDREW JACOBS
A handful of states already omit the word "evolution" from their teaching guidelines, and Ms. Cox called it "a buzz word that causes a lot of negative reaction." She added that people often associate it with "that monkeys-to-man sort of thing."

THIS is one reason why evolution SHOULD be taught in classrooms. To dispell that stupid "monkeys-to-man" myth. I wouldn't be surprised if this uneducated Cox woman perpetuates the belief that this is what evolution teaches.

Originally posted by darcybaston:
Still, Ms. Cox, who was elected to the post in 2002, said the concept would be taught, as well as "emerging models of change" that challenge Darwin's theories. "Galileo was not considered reputable when he came out with his theory," she said.

Currently there are no theories that able to compete with evolution. The specifics of evolution by natural selection themselves are debated fervently, but noone has yet come up with a remotely viable alternative.

[Millennium]

The whole thing is stupid.

However, in the interest of fairness, it should be noted that no state has forbidden the teaching of evolution in schools, and this law does not do so either. What some states do -and what this law looks like it would do- is state that teachers are not required to discuss it.

What difference does that make? That's what is really up for debate.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Scientist:
THIS is one reason why evolution SHOULD be taught in classrooms. To dispell that stupid "monkeys-to-man" myth. I wouldn't be surprised if this uneducated Cox woman perpetuates the belief that this is what evolution teaches.



Currently there are no theories that able to compete with evolution. The specifics of evolution by natural selection themselves are debated fervently, but noone has yet come up with a remotely viable alternative.

Well, there is the good old "God made us around 4000+ years ago" theme...

There has also been a "We are all simply part of a construct, and really the earth is much older, but we live inside a computer system."

but I like the: "We were built by an alien race of robots, and if you touch your private parts too much, they will come back..." theory.

[-Q-]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
but I like the: "We were built by an alien race of robots, and if you touch your private parts too much, they will come back..." theory.

If that were true, they'd have been here years ago.

And yes, I live in Georgia. I'm not from here. But boy, am I ashamed to be here right now. Biggest display of stupidity I've seen...

[entrox]

I object to teaching books calling the earth "round", or even worse, "ellipsoid". There is no conclusive proof which states that this the case. Instead, children should learn about a flat or hollow earth, too. It's only fair, isn't it?

[xe0]

many people forget, evolution is a theory.

It is just one of many theories we have produced during our time on earth, to try and explain our reality. A few centuries ago, many theorized that the earth was held up by a tortoise and an elephant. The tortoise Chukwa supports the elephant Maha-pudma, which was supposed to uphold the world.
If you were a contemporary during this period, and have said you thought otherwise, you may have been subjected to ridicule.

Each age has its own hypothesis to explain how and why we are alive- but the fact of the matter is all our assumptions are mealy speculation. We just don't know.

Evolution is no different. It is just our contemporary theory.

[entrox]

Originally posted by xe0:
many people forget, evolution is a theory.

So is gravity. What's your point?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by xe0:
many people forget, evolution is a theory.

It is just one of many theories we have produced during our time on earth, to try and explain our reality. A few centuries ago, many theorized that the earth was held up by a tortoise and an elephant. The tortoise Chukwa supports the elephant Maha-pudma, which was supposed to uphold the world.
If you were a contemporary during this period, and have said you thought otherwise, you may have been subjected to ridicule.

Each age has its own hypothesis to explain how and why we are alive- but the fact of the matter is all our assumptions are mealy speculation. We just don't know.

Evolution is no different. It is just our contemporary theory.

Be prepared to be flamed by the religious evolution zealots.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by xe0:
many people forget, evolution is a theory.
[...]

It is just our contemporary theory.

PLEASE. There has been a 25-page thread from hell on this, and one of the points made about thirty times is that scientific "theory" is the closest thing to "fact" known to man.

The term merely reflects that it is open to augmentation or revision should evidence become available that contradicts it. That is the basis of scientific thought, and does NOT indicate that evolution is mere speculation.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Be prepared to be flamed by the religious evolution zealots.

Couldn't resist, could you?

[boots]

Originally posted by xe0:
many people forget, evolution is a theory.


Evolution is no different. It is just our contemporary theory.

Yep. It's a theory. A theory that has a lot of supporting facts. Any new theory will also have to explain the facts we have observed already...like quantum theory has done with newtonian mechanics.

But is is just a theory, and there is still a lot we don't know.

[mitchell_pgh]

Her stupidity reflects her background.

This person has never left Georgia. She probably grew up there, went to college there (BA and MA from Emory University) and then jumped in to the Educational game and rode it out to the top [well, top of her game]...

With such a limited view of the United States or the world, no wonder she has proposed such a ridiculous idea. Many of the southern states still play "Good Ol' Boy" as is "Good Old Boy" politics.

Next step... rewriting books.

[jaiqua]

She sounds like one of those who would ban Harry Potter books based on them being anti-Christian, and therefore dangerous ideology.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by entrox:
I object to teaching books calling the earth "round", or even worse, "ellipsoid". There is no conclusive proof which states that this the case. Instead, children should learn about a flat or hollow earth, too. It's only fair, isn't it?

Look out - many MacNN users have no ability to detect humor or sarcasm. You're about to get flamed...

[-Q-]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:


This person has never left Georgia. She probably grew up there, went to college there (BA and MA from Emory University) and then jumped in to the Educational game and rode it out to the top [well, top of her game]...

I'm actually surprised that someone who graduated from Emory (a VERY good school) could have done so when she's so obviously terminally stupid. I do know my kids won't be going to school in GA...

[Scientist]

Originally posted by Scientist:
THIS is one reason why evolution SHOULD be taught in classrooms. To dispell that stupid "monkeys-to-man" myth. I wouldn't be surprised if this uneducated Cox woman perpetuates the belief that this is what evolution teaches.



Currently there are no theories that able to compete with evolution. The specifics of evolution by natural selection itself is debated fervently, but noone has yet come up with a remotely viable alternative.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Millennium:
However, in the interest of fairness, it should be noted that no state has forbidden the teaching of evolution in schools, and this law does not do so either. What some states do -and what this law looks like it would do- is state that teachers are not required to discuss it.

What difference does that make? That's what is really up for debate.

The difference is that the ruling clears the way for local school boards to abolish evolution from their curricula, and to do so with little scrutiny by the public. The Christian anti-evolution movement have largely forgone high-profile efforts like this Georgia case (for reasons which ought to be obvious) in favor of gaining seats on local school boards and fighting evolution on a district-by-district basis. Since most local people are too apathetic to get involved themselves and fight it, it's proven to be a more successful tactic.

Bottom line: any law or ruling that encourages ignorance of established scientific principles is harmful.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
The Christian anti-evolution movement have largely forgone high-profile efforts [...] in favor of [...] fighting evolution on a district-by-district basis.

heh..."fighting evolution"...

I'd say that those poor sods still fighting evolution in this day and age have already won, QED.

The rest of humanity moves on...

-s*

[Face Ache]

Evolution in Georgia? Since when?

[Axo1ot1]

organized religion is going extinct.

[Rev-O]

Originally posted by Nicko:
No worries, evolution will take care of them...

Must disagree... stupid people breed faster.

[boots]

I always liked Carter...

"There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith."

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
The difference is that the ruling clears the way for local school boards to abolish evolution from their curricula, and to do so with little scrutiny by the public. The Christian anti-evolution movement have largely forgone high-profile efforts like this Georgia case (for reasons which ought to be obvious) in favor of gaining seats on local school boards and fighting evolution on a district-by-district basis. Since most local people are too apathetic to get involved themselves and fight it, it's proven to be a more successful tactic.

Bottom line: any law or ruling that encourages ignorance of established scientific principles is harmful.

Its not established, its theory.

And no, theory is not the "closest thing to scientific fact we have". We don't measure distance based on objects in between.

While I agree it should be taught I don't think it should be as fact and other theories should be given equal favor, of course the teacher's ideas will always be a factor. Religion should not be taught, but tolerance of it should be. After-all, isn't our goal to produce free-thinking individuals?

I don't see why some of you are so adamant against religion. We're not out to "convert" you, and we're not generalized "religion". I believe ignorance would be hanging onto one theory with a death-grip and saying anyone else is a heretic. Come to think of it, maybe its just human nature.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Tulkas:
Its not established, its theory.

I said it's an "established scientific principle." And it is.

Evolution � the gradual change of organisms over time into new, distinct species � has been observed in a variety of conditions. It is, in the scientific sense, a "fact." It is also a theory, in that the term "evolution" refers not just to the occurrence of this change but the means (or the mechanism) by which it occurs.

There is still disagreement over exactly how and why species change. There is no credible argument that they don't.

And no, theory is not the "closest thing to scientific fact we have". We don't measure distance based on objects in between.

I don't know what you mean by that remark. Evolution isn't based simply on looking at recovered fossils and then guessing.

Otherwise, theory is the closest thing we have to fact. All of our ideas about the natural world are theories, because they cannot logically disprove every other conceivable hypothesis. We weren't there when the universe was made and the laws, so to speak, were written. All we have for understanding processes we did not create is theory, because we cannot know with absolute certainty (a key distinction) that our surmise is the only possible correct one.

While I agree it should be taught I don't think it should be as fact and other theories should be given equal favor, of course the teacher's ideas will always be a factor.

If there are other scientific theories regarding the origin and differentiation of species, I haven't heard. Creation myths are just that: myths. They have value, but they shouldn't be taught as science.

Religion should not be taught, but tolerance of it should be. After-all, isn't our goal to produce free-thinking individuals?

I agree with this.

I don't see why some of you are so adamant against religion. We're not out to "convert" you, and we're not generalized "religion". I believe ignorance would be hanging onto one theory with a death-grip and saying anyone else is a heretic. Come to think of it, maybe its just human nature.

I have nothing against people with sincerely held religious beliefs; in fact, people who truly manage to embody the tenets of their religious faith (in my experience, a meager few) garner my greatest respect. I think the world (or at least this country) would be a better place if our children were taught to be open-minded and less judgmental about beliefs different from their own.

Having said that, recognizing that evolution is a scientific approach to the question of human origins, and that creation mythology is not, should not be interpreted as discrimination or hatred of anyone's religious beliefs. The scientific method may not be the be-all and end-all of human experience, but it's served us pretty well over the last few centuries, enabling us to unlock mysteries it was long assumed were forever unsolvable. As a culture, we've decided these are worthy intellectual tools to pass on to our children, to enable them to further our efforts in understanding our universe. How do we then explain that in this one subject � the origin of species � science is suddenly inadequate and must be bolstered by mythology? Particularly when the case for evolution (and a 4+ billion-year-old Earth) is so strong?

[xe0]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
I said it's an "established scientific principle." And it is.

So was the teaching of a flat earth many years ago.

There is still disagreement over exactly how and why species change. There is no credible argument that they don't.

And, there is no credible evidence that they do

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by xe0:
So was the teaching of a flat earth many years ago.

The proper way to correct mistaken theories is with better science, not religious doctrine.

Originally posted by xe0:
[BAnd, there is no credible evidence that they do [/B]

I know you are, but what am I?

[xe0]

on a personal note, I find evolution to make very little scientific sense. It is not logical to assume we are mealy advanced amoebas reacting to stimuli.

Furthermore, there is no evidential fossils showing the progressive state of one species to the next. If the earth is as old as we think it is, then logically there should be a bounty of fossil records showing the transformation of each and every species.

in recent times many ague over how evolution takes place, due to this very fact of a lack of evidence. Since our fossil records do not show a gradual development of life from one type to another, some evolutionists theorize that that the process must have happened by 'jerks and starts' and not as a steady pace as originally conceived by Darwin.

Some who follow this theory call the process 'punctuated equilibrium.' that is to say each species stays the same until a drastic change in the gene pool. But doesn't this say the opposite to the original theory?
The fact of the matter is Darwinism was so flawed it has been modified many times and along the way renamed Evolution, and still to this day the theory undergoes radical changes. Does anyone know what the latest hypothesis is?

In any case- for me personally I cant put my trust and belief in such a fanciful theory. I really don't have the answer to why we are here. And my opinion is anyone who assumes they know how, when and why we arrived here on earth is foolish.

[xe0]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
The proper way to correct mistaken theories is with better science, not religious doctrine.

I agree- but Nonsuch, why bring religion into this debate? religion doesn't have the answers, and by assuming that I am a religious follower shows you have not been listening to what I am saying

[ironknee]

sigh:::::

i'm reminded of a recent simpsons where ned gave marge something and marge thanked him for be a gentelman (or something like that)

Ned says yup i'm old fashion, kinda like a caveman...he walks off screen, then reappears and says even though they never exisited...

[Superchicken]

Great now the playing field for evolutionists is almost as poor as it is for anyone who has any sort of religious beliefs!

GOOD JOB GORGIA!

I should also point out that my biology teacher in high school used to avoid the topic of evolution because he knew I would object and challenge the HUGE assumptions one has to make in teaching evolution... not to mention he got sick of me writing on the tests

"The answer you are looking for is C, but in actual fact you did not give the correct answer"

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
I said it's an "established scientific principle." And it is.

Evolution � the gradual change of organisms over time into new, distinct species � has been observed in a variety of conditions. It is, in the scientific sense, a "fact." It is also a theory, in that the term "evolution" refers not just to the occurrence of this change but the means (or the mechanism) by which it occurs.

There is still disagreement over exactly how and why species change. There is no credible argument that they don't.



I don't know what you mean by that remark. Evolution isn't based simply on looking at recovered fossils and then guessing.

Otherwise, theory is the closest thing we have to fact. All of our ideas about the natural world are theories, because they cannot logically disprove every other conceivable hypothesis. We weren't there when the universe was made and the laws, so to speak, were written. All we have for understanding processes we did not create is theory, because we cannot know with absolute certainty (a key distinction) that our surmise is the only possible correct one.

[/B]

If there are other scientific theories regarding the origin and differentiation of species, I haven't heard. Creation myths are just that: myths. They have value, but they shouldn't be taught as science.

[/B]

I agree with this.



I have nothing against people with sincerely held religious beliefs; in fact, people who truly manage to embody the tenets of their religious faith (in my experience, a meager few) garner my greatest respect. I think the world (or at least this country) would be a better place if our children were taught to be open-minded and less judgmental about beliefs different from their own.

Having said that, recognizing that evolution is a scientific approach to the question of human origins, and that creation mythology is not, should not be interpreted as discrimination or hatred of anyone's religious beliefs. The scientific method may not be the be-all and end-all of human experience, but it's served us pretty well over the last few centuries, enabling us to unlock mysteries it was long assumed were forever unsolvable. As a culture, we've decided these are worthy intellectual tools to pass on to our children, to enable them to further our efforts in understanding our universe. How do we then explain that in this one subject � the origin of species � science is suddenly inadequate and must be bolstered by mythology? Particularly when the case for evolution (and a 4+ billion-year-old Earth) is so strong? [/B]

Evolution, yes. One species to a distinctly unique one... for me the evidence isn't there. More importantly the date lines just don't work.

Theory CAN become fact. A theory is incomplete, and is very possibly wrong. You can't teach young minds that something IS fact when it isn't. It may be close to fact, hell it might be 99% fact, but its for the individual to decide. The same goes for religion. Its not for schools to teach it or decide to do so.

How strong a certain theory/ideology should never be a factor. Teach the facts as they are. Science is always inadequate to explain such a huge thing and there's no point teaching otherwise. Religion is not science and while I do think it and science do work together its a choice. The idea should be presented where its relevant, but on the other hand evolution should not be taught as fact.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Great now the playing field for evolutionists is almost as poor as it is for anyone who has any sort of religious beliefs!

GOOD JOB GORGIA!

I should also point out that my biology teacher in high school used to avoid the topic of evolution because he knew I would object and challenge the HUGE assumptions one has to make in teaching evolution... not to mention he got sick of me writing on the tests

"The answer you are looking for is C, but in actual fact you did not give the correct answer"

I think you missed the point. Evolution should be taught, this is about science and you can't ignore a theory because it makes people uncomfortable. Still, it needs to be taught as a theory and very possibly wrong. Flaws need to be presented. Frankly I see no reason why it has to be taught in a manner that makes religious students uncomfortable.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Tulkas:
Its not established, its theory.

And no, theory is not the "closest thing to scientific fact we have". We don't measure distance based on objects in between.

Gravity is just a "theory".

Is that close enough to fact for you?

The evidence is overwhelming in either case.

-s*

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Gravity is just a "theory".

Is that close enough to fact for you?

The evidence is overwhelming in either case.

-s*

Evidence is not fact.

No, its not enough for me and its not enough for the school system. We don't teach something as what it isn't because you feel its "close enough". Give them the facts not opinion. Otherwise why not teach religion? Flat earth theory?

[Axo1ot1]

First of all...

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
I should also point out that my biology teacher in high school used to avoid the topic of evolution because he knew I would object and challenge the HUGE assumptions one has to make in teaching evolution... not to mention he got sick of me writing on the tests

"The answer you are looking for is C, but in actual fact you did not give the correct answer"

*snip*
Secondly...

Ever thought of debating a topic like an adult, instead of acting like a thirteen year old?

*snip*

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
You are all retarded. The anti-evolution folks because you wouldn't know rationality if it came up and raped you in the ass, and the pro evolution folks for thinking the anti evolution folks will ever work things out properly.

So what do you mean by "rationality"? You might thing calling people retarded makes you look smart, it doesn't.

[mrmister]

Creationists love to argue that evolution isn't proven, that it's just a theory but have little stomach for questioning other popular theories regarding gravity, physics or the Earth's relationship to the Sun. This should be a dead giveaway that the issue is a pedagogic one, not a logical one--they just use that as a straw man arguement because, for whatever reason, they can not live with evolution being taught as fact.

One shouldn't get into arguements with people on this because once faith becomes stuck onto science you get dogmatism and propaganda.

What's happening in Georgia is unfortunate, but if you look at the whole planet you see that day by day, year by year science is winning out...it may seem impossible sometimes, but one day no one will believe the Earth is only 4000 years old.

And on that day there will still be churches, and they will still be doing good work.

[Axo1ot1]

Originally posted by Tulkas:
So what do you mean by "rationality"? You might thing calling people retarded makes you look smart, it doesn't.

No, but spelling properly does.

[hyteckit]

Originally posted by xe0:
on a personal note, I find evolution to make very little scientific sense. It is not logical to assume we are mealy advanced amoebas reacting to stimuli.

Furthermore, there is no evidential fossils showing the progressive state of one species to the next. If the earth is as old as we think it is, then logically there should be a bounty of fossil records showing the transformation of each and every species.

in recent times many ague over how evolution takes place, due to this very fact of a lack of evidence. Since our fossil records do not show a gradual development of life from one type to another, some evolutionists theorize that that the process must have happened by 'jerks and starts' and not as a steady pace as originally conceived by Darwin.

Do you actually know how fossil records come about?

Hmm... that's like me asking where are the fossil records of adam & eve, noah, jesus. No fossil record of Jesus? Guess Jesus never existed.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by mrmister:
Creationists love to argue that evolution isn't proven, that it's just a theory but have little stomach for questioning other popular theories regarding gravity, physics or the Earth's relationship to the Sun. This should be a dead giveaway that the issue is a pedagogic one, not a logical one--they just use that as a straw man arguement because, for whatever reason, they can not live with evolution being taught as fact.

One shouldn't get into arguements with people on this because once faith becomes stuck onto science you get dogmatism and propaganda.

What's happening in Georgia is unfortunate, but if you look at the whole planet you see that day by day, year by year science is winning out...it may seem impossible sometimes, but one day no one will believe the Earth is only 4000 years old.

And on that day there will still be churches, and they will still be doing good work.

Mmmm, that smells like.. like ignorance.

Evolution is not fact. Your belief on the matter should not be pinned onto kids who're just learning what they're taught. You can't honestly expect anyone to believe a theory as fact, moreover one which still has flaws and is still developing. Yes, there are other theories such as gravity that are things we take for granted. I see this as more examples why theory should be clearly marked because people who aren't actively into science are just going to keep on believing a lie.

Religion is about life and how you live it, not about origins. Evolution is going to do absolutely nothing to make your life better or you a better person. Religion and scientific method do not conflict.

No, you don't mean science. Science, after all, is something most people will never care about because it has nothing to do with their lives. You can't "believe" in science.

I don't do organized religion, by the way. I feel it leads to greed, corruption and an overall decay.

Sorry if a missed your point but you were very vague in that last paragraph.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
No, but spelling properly does.

Really? I never noticed that about you.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by mrmister:
Creationists love to argue that evolution isn't proven, that it's just a theory but have little stomach for questioning other popular theories regarding gravity, physics or the Earth's relationship to the Sun. This should be a dead giveaway that the issue is a pedagogic one, not a logical one--they just use that as a straw man arguement because, for whatever reason, they can not live with evolution being taught as fact.

One shouldn't get into arguements with people on this because once faith becomes stuck onto science you get dogmatism and propaganda.

What's happening in Georgia is unfortunate, but if you look at the whole planet you see that day by day, year by year science is winning out...it may seem impossible sometimes, but one day no one will believe the Earth is only 4000 years old.

And on that day there will still be churches, and they will still be doing good work.

Not bad. Not bad at all.

[hyteckit]

Originally posted by Tulkas:
Mmmm, that smells like.. like ignorance.

Evolution is not fact. Your belief on the matter should not be pinned onto kids who're just learning what they're taught. You can't honestly expect anyone to believe a theory as fact, moreover one which still has flaws and is still developing. Yes, there are other theories such as gravity that are things we take for granted. I see this as more examples why theory should be clearly marked because people who aren't actively into science are just going to keep on believing a lie.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is trying to explain this fact.

Religion is about life and how you live it, not about origins. Evolution is going to do absolutely nothing to make your life better or you a better person. Religion and scientific method do not conflict.

FALSE, Religion is often purpose of life and origin of life.

FALSE, Evolution is the binding force of all biological research.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotheory.html

It helps you understand where we came from and how we can improve and save ourselves through biological research.

FALSE, religion and scientific method DO conflict. It has in the past and still does today. Look at what we are arguing about at Georgia.

No, you don't mean science. Science, after all, is something most people will never care about because it has nothing to do with their lives. You can't "believe" in science.

I believe in science. Do you go to the doctor? You know how much science is behind that? Do you trust your doctor and the medication your doctor prescribes? If you don't believe in science, how do you believe that the doctor knows what he is doing and if the medication works?

[hyteckit]

Oh yeah,

And gravity is a fact too.
The theory of gravity is trying to explain this fact.