State Legislators Seek Bills to Allow Questioning of Evolution Theory in Schools

I think this is a positive move. It's not pro-religion, it's pro-thought. There are many things Evolution does not and/or can not explain. There are many scientist's that are against it. Despite the fact that I think we shouldn't be teaching a flawed theory, at least this evens the tables a bit. It isn't a cut-and-dry issue, and being so convoluted they shouldn't teach one line of thinking as THE truth without allowing discussion or even the possibility of discussion, especially when there are so many unanswered questions.

Why is discussion in pursuit of truth, answers, and understanding out of the question? This goes for issues like Global Warming as well, the "enlightened" majority so set and comfortable, not wanting the holes in their philosophies probed and ripped apart. I'm not saying either side is right, because there are holes on both sides, but the pursuit of truth should hold reign over all other motives and this just is not the case in our society.

It's time for debate, open forum... discussion in the pursuit of truth, not arguing to win.

Finally, I can advance my theory on Evolution: Gil Gerard time traveled to the past and jerked off into the primordial ooze.

What a load of disingenuous bullshit.

We're not talking about your political beliefs here, henry. Stay on topic.

Intelligent design proves neither intelligence nor design.

Bollocks. Nothing to do with politics, everything to do with critical thought.

I'm serious, whether or not it's THEIR view isn't my problem. I believe certain aspects of evolution have truth. Not that I'm going to waste my time trying to persuade you of my sincerity on here. Why not try and make an argument out of your views and not attack my thoughts. I try to be as honest as possible, unless I'm covering my ass to get out of trouble. I don't have reason to lie to you or be fake.

If you question that, you can fuck off. How's that for sincerity? Please don't take that as an offensive remark, I am merely only illustrating a point.

You misunderstand- I'm insulting henry here and his usual bigotry and close-mindedness- no politics involved!

No it isn't.

Yes there are, hence the term "theory".

Again, it's a theory. As has been pointed out over and over on this board, science hasn't closed the book so far as to call it a 'fact', so the discussion, the research is ongoing.

Is there some official mandate that dictates that evolution can't be challenged? Unless there is, why is there any need for legislative action, other than to help to advance a theory that can't be accepted scientifically?

The debate is open. If you've got a theory that can be reasonably defended, I'm sure the brownshirts won't come knocking on your door just yet.

Your statements are deliberately designed to make implications which are false.

There is not any significant scientific opposition to the theory of evolution. There are a tiny handful of discredited crazies combined with a relatively small number of people who work in other fields. Your implication is one of lively debate.

Furthermore, evolution does not purport to "explain everything", so that point is irrelevant and misleading.

Finally, to the extent that the theory is found wanting on specific points, it is continually modified within certain boundaries which are at this point supported by such an overwhelming body of evidence that it takes conscious self-delusion to ignore.

I'm not sure how old you are so I don't know when the last time you were in high school was...but being a graduate of high school class of 2006 I know from personal experience how it is taught as "fact" in school with out allowed question. I am also in attendance at a "Christian" liberal arts college where you think they might teach the other side, but they don't. I am a Sociology minor and my when any of my Soc. professors come across it in class they teach it as if it is fact as well. Anytime I mentioned it being a THEORY, just like you said, they cut discussion short because it is, and I'm paraphrasing here, "widely accepted in the scientific community".

Theories in science are often used like they are facts. Especially when they don't teach anything other than it. Yes it's a theory, but they don't accept ANYTHING else. Tell me another view that they teach, any at all.

People scoff at intelligent design because it runs close if not overlaps religion, but it's been accepted by people who are or were atheistic.

I'll just ignore the brown shirt thing, it'll just stray from topic, doesn't matter anyway.

I predict this thread goes 250 posts. They usually do.

Question: Are there any other scientific theories taught in high school where teachers are required to mention dissenting opinions, or just evolution?

"Required" or "allowed"?

Now, I am NOT saying that I support this bill or this thread for religious reasons, but I want to share a little piece of information with you.

Christians believe science can lead to belief in God. Science and the way the world works goes towards the understanding of how God works. The whole intricate blueprints for everything. Physics, biology,...everything.

I've never heard a good use science to disprove God. Big Bang? Just another theory based on observations that the universe is moving. A theory that is in no way provable. You talk to Christian scientists and there are thousands upon thousands...forget numbers, everything in science can point to God.

No theory is "provable" from an epistimolgical point of view. But the evidence is still conclusive.

When I took high school biology, the teacher said he was supposed to mention that not everybody believes in evolution, and that there was information on alternative theories available.

If you prove a theory it becomes a law. Ex: Gravity. Therefore, if a theory is true it can be proven.

As for "evidence"... "evidence" can be used to prove anything in the eyes of man. Innocent people are in jail, as well as guilty running free due to evidence. However, for the sake of debate, or curiosity maybe...tell me of this conclusive evidence.

Are there any others where they will get their asses hauled into court if they do?

I'm rather sure it's been pointed out over and over on this board that theory is not synonymous with hypothesis; it's synonymous with scientific law. That is unless we're to believe germ theory, the theory of relativity, and heliocentric theory aren't accepted yet.

Will you admit now that creationists are trying to push their agenda on schools?

It's very slippery the way evolution believers say "gravity is just a theory too" as if that ends the argument.

But that's deceptive because everyone knows gravity EXISTS. The existence of gravity is NOT theoretical, it is an established observable fact.

HOW gravity exists is theoretical, and no more conclusively understood than evolution - less so in fact.

Likewise, that life IS, is not theoretical.

Gravity exists.
Life exists.

Actually observable verifiable FACT.

HOW life exists, as HOW gravity exists, is still theoretical.

I imagine you don't see much evidence because you don't care to look for it.

Check out the following talk by Ken Miller. It's main focus is the court case challenging creationism in the science class but as part of that he gives some absolutely amazing evidence for evolution. Really ironclad stuff (especially comparative studies on human and primate DNA mutation).

And if it makes you feel better Miller says he's religious (Catholic I believe) and states he doesn't believe it's an either-or question of evolution or god.

[YT="Ken Miller on Intelligent Design"]JVRsWAjvQSg[/YT]

Edit: I'll throw in the National Academy of Science's definition of theory since you seem to be getting that wrong too:

A theory is the exact opposite of the way you're using it; it's so well supported that it becomes a vital framework for understanding new ideas.

Absolute nonsense. Please obtain a clue about the scientific method before presuming to speak about it, thanks.

Evidence cannot be used to prove anything. It can be used to support that to which it points. If incomplete or misunderstood, it can lead to faulty conclusions.
The evidence for the big bang includes the Doppler shift and cosmic background radiation. But again, one would presume you had an elementary knowledge of this before dismissing it out of hand in favour of your bronze-age fairytales.

No...

Gravity is used as a law in physics because it does in fact seem to be a law of the universe that matter will attract other matter. You can conduct the experiment yourself by picking up something and then dropping it.

What is a theory is why gravity exists and what causes it.

Hmm, actually reading a few posts beyond that it seems Shep has already elaborated on that.

Quoting Ryan here...

As that said, a good scientific theory makes predictions that will be borne out by evidence (or not and therefore show the theory needs alteration), it's not just speculation.

Now, as for the subject of this thread, I think that both sides are being a bit silly. In my mind there is nothing wrong with teaching kids to question the science they are learning, because that should be the aim of science class, to teach critical thinking and how to analyse evidence.

I would think the court case unnecessary only because as part of the teaching of evolution (or indeed any other scientific theory) teachers should be saying what evidence there is for it, and also what evidence could falsify it.

If God does exist, funny that man has to prove God's existance..., but if he indeed does, it would be impossible to know "how God exists" unless you were to be in the presence of God and ask the question. There is no feasible plausible answer to that question that could even possibly be understood in human terms. Eternity upon eternity...the whole concept I think, or thought, even an atheist could grasp.

As for proving God's existence, which I hope is what you meant. If that were possible at this point, we wouldn't be having this discussion. This is also where the issue of "faith" comes in and frankly, it takes A LOT more faith to be an atheist. Either way, when you get close to death you'll still wonder, in your atheistic heart of hearts, what will happen, and if this God you don't believe in will have mercy on your soul. Then when you die, you get to know the answer. Lucky you.

Evolution can explain how species gradually "evolve" from one to another along the way. However, it can not account for how life goes from NOTHING to a single celled organism. Also, evolution goes with gradual change through mutation.

There are cases evolution cannot account for:
Ex: The Bacterial Flagellum

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/Flagellum.html

I apologize, I did make an assumption here. It has been a long time since I was in any kind of science class. Please explain the difference between a theory and a law, and define both. This would be the best way for me to "get a clue" and you to prove your point.

You changed the words but the meaning is the same. If a jury or a judge comes to a conclusion on a case, they make a judgement. They would have made their decision based on the evidence at hand. Referring to the case at hand, whether guilty or innocent, true or false, the individual or case at hand would have been proven, whether or not it was in reality that way. Like I said, there are innocent people in jail, as well as guilty people running free.

These are just the words of men. We are debating whether or not something IS the way it IS. Whether or not you win the argument isn't going to change the way things are. So, ultimately until this issue is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt for both sides, no one will ever know for sure. This isn't a cop-out, it's reality. Both sides here can do nothing but argue the information at hand. No one has added anything new to the issue, the scientific community has not been rocked by these arguments.

It's funny actually, that we're both relying on faith. I have faith in God, while you have faith in what you can prove. I'll debate the science with you, and try to account for the information, whether I know it or not doesn't change it. However ultimately, man can not prove everything in the universe because of time and limitations. You can't go back in time and see evolution take place. You can't watch the big bang. You don't have the time or capability to explore the vast expanse of space, though you can try. You can't prove philosophies because they are man made and no one philosophy, no matter how true, holds true all the way across the board. You have faith that all these are true based on the information you find and are given or observe. We know gravity is real because we see an apple fall, but we can't figure out how it happens.

We both have a LOT of faith. You know what happens if I'm wrong? Nothing. Jack shit. I die, my body goes to the worms. You know what happens if you are wrong? Well, I guess you'll just have to find out.