school mandates changes to evolution.

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Th3 b0ng 1337, Nov 12, 2004.

  1. creavolutionism
  2. Now you're talking Astrophysics, not Evolution.
  3. astro-creavolutionism
  4. shuttup ure a pothead, no one will listen to you
  5. Cool.
  6. Im talking about a theory about the creation of earth, which ties in to....

    evolutionism and creationism! No way!
  7. Chemistry ties into physics, but is still not physics. However, my point is if you're going to teach Young-Earth Creationism, you're going to need to teach it alongside Physics, Astronomy, etc, because Evolution itself says NOTHING about the creation of the Universe (besides perhaps, the necessity of the Universe having existed for a long-ass time). Creationism is not only a contrary theory to Evolution but also to Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, etc.

    You can believe that God created the entire Universe, and still believe in Evolution, those two ideas are not mutually exclusive, so why mention it in a debate specifically about the teaching of Evolution?
  8. No, but the concepts are taught at the same time in high school, in Biology. At least, that's the way it is in the US. Every high school student takes biology as a freshman or a sophomore, and they are taught the origins of the universe (simply, of course) as a prelude to learning th origins of life and then evolution.
  9. They should just stop teaching this shit all together. Most of it is bullshit, dont belive me? Look at how text books were written 40 years ago. In another 40, its gonna be the same thing.
  10. NB= Nothing but the Best
  11. All that "Integrated" shit, is shit. All the concepts tie into eachother, but teaching them together is just going to confuze the shit out of students. Teach them the concepts, Then tie them together.

    Also, though they are taught the origins of the Universe, that still does not implicate that they are being taught the Universe was not created, except for the Young-Earth creationists, for which there is next to no evidence supporting their claims.
  12. I dont see whats so hard to get.

    When I was in middle school. we did the evolution unit. It talked about Evolutionism being the theory that man evolved from lower organisms, and in THE SAME UNIT, it talked about how if that were possible, the universe would have had to form naturally, hence it also brought up the theory that matter was created spontaneously.

    So, therefore, if you arent going to teach the theory of creationism along with the unit of how man came to be, why are you going to teach another theory in the same unit that is equally as strange?
  13. Because there really isn't a widely accepted, scientifically backed school of thought on that?
  14. No, I get what you're saying. Evolution does not require that the universe initially came into existance by totally "natural" means. Evolution does not necessitate that all the matter/energy in the Universe formed spontaneously, and if you think it does, then that is a misinterpretation of the theory. There is such a thing as an Old-Earth Creationist, and a Theistic Evolutionist. And whose creation story are we using? Just A designer of some sort? If you're not limited to any actual creation story, then any age period is possible and any method of creation is as well, including Evolution as guided creation.
  15. Creationism is scientific? Please, then, post all the predictions it makes and the evidence in its favor. Face it, it makes none, and there isn't any. That makes it religion.

    Also, I don't know whether you are simply confused about what evolution is, or whether you are simply being dishonest in attempting to bundle abiogenesis in with evolution in some lame attempt to discredit it. Evolution describes the diversification of life, nothing more.
  16. I don't care who pushes it. Until it makes testable predictions, it is not a valid scientific theory.
  17. And also, people need to get over the fact that modern science will never conform to common sense. Ever taken an in depth quantum mechanics course? I bet you'd come out confused as shit as to how half of what they taught could be true. That doesn't keep it from the being the most successful and important scientific theory in a long time (forever?).
  18. I don't care who defends it. Until it makes a prediction beyond "God did it" it isn't science.
  19. How were text books written 40 years ago? No major scientific theory has been discarded in the last century.
  20. What if it uses science to support that prediction?
  21. Which observations require a designer/creator?
  22. I think intellegent design should be breifly skimmed on in Biology class, and thats it.
  23. If you teach students something you must offer them evidence. What would the teachers, whose schedules are already stretched way too thin, give in the way of evidence?
  24. Just say that some people belive this, which involves this happening... thats it. By briefly, I really ment brief... like a 30 min talk on it at most.
  25. If it only merits a 30 minute talk, then it really isn't important enough to deserve this thread.

Share This Page