the world just gets weirder

Rekkr wrote: ivan_2068 wrote: Supreme Court didn't had the right to ban the theory of Creationism, because is a clear attempt to the freedom of faith and against the universalism in education. No, they should have the right to ban it. They banned the theory of creationism from PUBLIC (as in government run) schools because of separation of church and state. Having the public schools teach creationism is not only unscientific, but is patronizing a religion - Christianity. I am an evolutionist, and I know much about science. The theory of evolution is on very solid ground and what few errors there are hardly question the theory. On the other hand, creationism has no basis in reality. PERIOD. I would rather see Intelligent Design taught over creationism, even though there isn't much proof for that either. I think that schools should do their job correctly and "educate", not "preach". If parents are unhappy with evolution being taught, or anything else, then they can either pull their kids out of school, or explain to them why what they are learning is false (in their opinion of course). gdub411 wrote: aqualung28 wrote: They should teach both of them or teach none at all ...good call. It isn't right to teach children one without the other. It automatically will legitimize the Theory of Evolution since Creationism isn't taught in public schools. People should be able to hear both ends of the argument and decide which one they prefer. I think Theory is the key word here. Neither one is based on hard evidence and one could poke holes in either one. Teaching "both end of the argument" would not be teaching Creationism vs. Evolution. Creationism is not "an argument against evolution" because (1) it doesn't even bring up any valid points and has no backing science (2) creationism is hardly an alternative to evolution. Why teach creationism? Why teach that the earth is 6000 years old? Why teach that evolution is wrong even though evolution is supported by tons of scientific evidence? Where will that get us? Nowhere.

I couldn't agree more. Evolution has facts on it's side,creationism has none. That simple fact should end the discussion right there but I have a gut instinct that it will not. After all,the human species has a very annoying habit: Arguing against hard,undeniable facts simply because they don't like them. There's not enough withering scorn in my intellectual arsenal to convey what I truly think of that.

No, they should have the right to ban it. They banned the theory of creationism from PUBLIC (as in government run) schools because of separation of church and state. Having the public schools teach creationism is not only unscientific, but is patronizing a religion - Christianity.

Absolutely disagree Rekkr, all theories must be taught, as I said before, if we all know that humans reached America by the Behring Strait, why do schools still teach the Polynesian and Ameghino's theory that says mankind is native from America?

None except Hrdlika’s theory of Behring has real scientific support, but all are taught in schools.

When someone bans a theory because he simply doesn't believe in it, lets be afraid because it’s the beginning of fundamentalism. more than 80% of USA Citizens believe God had some relation with the creation of Universe, why does that 13% has the right to ban what most people believes in.

I'm not a Creationist, but I defend the right to teach that theory, because that's what democracy and universalism means.

I remember a Jewish lawyer who defended the right of a Neo Nazi group to have reunions, he obviously was against nazism, but he was in favor of the right of this lunatics to express their ideas.

What will be next, burn  books because we don't agree with what they say?

What is closer to Dark Ages, to allow all theories and let people chose or to ban what you don’t believe in and force all people to believe in it?

Iván

tuxon wrote: To cover all theories is a good thing. But discuss them in the place where they belong. Science-class is about science, eg. theories, supported by facts, and empirical data, no religion, or believes have a place in that. Philosophical/religious debate. covers the interpretation of those facts and theories in the religious/philosophical context, and should be taught in the corresponding classes. Every person or group has the right not to believe facts or oppose them with believe, but to teach the youngsters from those groups not the facts as we know them, you deprive them of their right to choose. Ignorance belongs in the dark-ages not in our schools. yes alternative creation theories have a place in public schools, but only in the appropriate context.

I really understand and appricate what you are saying Tuxon.  I for one wish it could be so.  The problem is lawyers have taken things to such extreems that you are not allowed to broach subjects of religion excpet in a very limited historical context as to not cross the line of church and state. At least not to kids under the age of 17.  You have to wait almost for college before you can study that.  How is it in your country?

Scientific or not, Creationism is a theory about the creation of the universe. Should be also taught, if you want you can teach all the arguments against it and also in favor, but teach it, let people know it or are Civil Rights fanatics (Yes they are also extremists and fanatics as much as the crazy fundamentalists) afraid someone could believe in it?

The problem is lawyers have taken things to such extreems that you are not allowed to broach subjects of religion excpet in a very limited historical context as to not cross the line of church and state.

You made a good point there Garion, it's prohibited to teach Creationism in a biology class because it's not scientific, but it's also prohibited to teach religion.

Tell me, where is the right place?

Ignorance belongs in the dark-ages not in our schools.

You are right Tuxon, ignorance is the lack of knowledge, pretending to hide a theory from kids is promoting ignorance.

Catholic Church (my church) tried to hide all other knowledge to the people and those are the dark ages, aren't you pretending to do the same hiding the posibility of Creationism to the kids even if you and me don't believe in it?

Iván

Where should we teach religion, Ivan?

The tool shed. (Beware the "celibate" -- they're horny as hell!)

Seriously though, church & Sunday school. Should be up to the parents to take you there or not.

Now, simply countering with "therefore, don't teach evolution in school" is like saying "don't teach any science which might conflict with the Bible."

Science and logic say that Noah's Ark, for example, is impossible (at best, alegory) for many reasons.

Just 2: Water can't be destroyed -- where did it (enough to flood the earth) all go? Not everyone on earth was Jewish at the supposed time of the great Flood. Why were those who had never even heard of Jehovah punished/destroyed? 

Now, shall we not teach those basic scientific and historic facts? Don't they conflict with the Bible?

Don't teach any philosophy either.

Or mythology -- that's all lies.

Try this: "This is the theory of evolution. This is how Charles Darwin, most scientists, and many people think it must have happened...."

Archeology class, 101: We don't think that early cavemen had language (more theory). Our much closer relatives, time-wise (wait -- don't teach the fossil record, and how deeper strata is generally older!), neanderthal man, judging by the bones in his throat, seems to have been equipped for speech, but his language, if any, was likely very rudimentary. He most likely didn't have the concept of "future" (thus he reacted -- he  didn't plan). Why do we think this? Over his entire time on earth, his tools & weapons/burials progressed or changed not a whit. In contrast, modern human relics were constantly changing/improving.

This is scientific theory -- shall we not teach it?

Despite what GWB and many other born-again Christians believe, all scientific and rational evidence says that men and dinosaurs did not simultaneously cohabit the earth. Not even close.

This is theory -- not absolutely proven.

Absolute "proof" (given the supposed "possibility" of invisible rhinos in my room/ alternate universes/alternate laws of physics) is darned hard to come by! Only "logical' answer: teach nothing.

Meanwhile, back in the here and now....

"Global warming, and man's ability to negatively impact upon the earthly environment, is just a THEORY. Tra la la la la...."

Global warming is just a theory. Last year we had the coolest summer in Chicago than I can remember. It was only 30 years or so that scientists were thinking of salting the ice bergs with some sort of black salt to slow the ice -age. Perhaps there is something to global warming, but I would say we do not understand nature as well as we think.

The theory of evolution is a threat and contention toward Creation that if one is taught, than so should the other. Sometimes schools need to use common sense to decide things. I'm all for learning more so teach both. The seperation of church and state has gone too far as far as I'm concerned and I'm sure our forefathers are rolling in their graves at the extent we took their intentions to.

The world as we knew it in the Bible was pretty much the Mediterrean Sea and there is proof, according to the history channel that the Mediterrean may have flooded. Watch Mysteries of the Bible for details as I don't recall anymore what they were.

gdub411 wrote: Peter wrote: ^ !  Put yer head further up yer ass, Gdub. Now -- move toward the light.... Get that gasoline.... You know what I am sick and tired of. Being disregarded as some sort of simpleton. Just because I have a goofy sense of humour and like to display it doesn't lessen my knowledge. You guys better back off a bit and give me some credit for having some sort of brain capacity. It is you guys who simply refuse to argue rationally about this that need to get their heads out of their asses. Just assume everything you say is right Peter even though my 3rd statement came from historians and scientists. Who should I hold more creedance to. Peter, a substitute teacher, or well regarded historians?

Peter's just being his goofy self, don't take it too seriously.