Wow... I can hear all the people you just excluded (the majority of people in this country I might add) saying the same exact thing about your position.<br /><br />It is easy enough to include all the major theories without much difficulty. All or nothing I say.
<br /><br />Actually a few states and counties have put "disclaimers" into biology textbooks, declaring that evolution is "only a theory"... Some of the disclaimers have now been removed...<br /><br />This is a c&p of the disclaimer that was proposed in Washington state in 1998 for science textbooks... <br /><br />"This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact. <br /><br />The word "evolution" may refer to many types of change. Evolution describes changes that occur within a species. (White moths, for example, may "evolve" into gray moths.) This process is microevolution, which can be observed and described as fact. Evolution may also refer to the change of one living thing to another, such as reptiles into birds. This process, called macroevolution, has never been observed and should be considered a theory. Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things. <br /><br />There are many unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the fossil record (known as the "Cambrian Explosion")? Why have no new major groups of living things appeared in the fossil record for a long time? Why do major groups of plants and animals have no transitional forms in the fossil record? How did you and all living things come to possess such a complete and complex set of "Instructions" for building a living body? <br /><br />Study hard and keep an open mind. Someday, you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on earth."<br /><br />What do ya'll think?
I can't type very well. When I say that evolution is the only theory defendable, I don't mean that it is the only theory with proof. I mean to say it is the only theory that cannot be attacked as "religious". By teaching creation, you are subject to attack not only from proponents of separation of church and state, but also from minority religions who's theories are not taught. The solution to attack from the latter group is to include their theories in the curriculum.<br /><br />This is where we may differ in opinion, but I don't think that teaching all major theories is an option. There will always be a group that will protest exclusion from the list, and we can't include them all. I don't think it's plausable to teach 50 different theories of creation. <br /><br />As I see it, the only plausable solution is to exclude ALL religious theories. That leaves evolution as the only theory left, since it is the only one without any religious component.
I disagree. Secularism is the only aspect that describes the creation of the universe as a "theory" based on observations. In every religion, they are not presented as theories but are taken to be factual. Christianity directly refutes Hinduism through the principle of "one God", and thus the Christian version of Creation contradicts the Hindu version.<br /><br />Secularism does not refute the existence of God, but merely states that there is little factual support either way. Secularism is the only unbiased viewpoint. Since I (and the majority of the population of the US) are uncomfortable with education taught from a biased standpoint, secularism is the only option left.
NooooOOO.
I do not disagree with evolution. I am stating a fact: there is no evidence that evolution ever happened. Fwiw, there is not yet enough data to prove that it didnt happen, either
But were getting there. After the theory was put forth and the arguing subsided, the theory of evolution seems to have been accepted as fact, as if the monkey trial somehow proved that evolution existed. It didnt! Personally, I dont see why theories of creationism have to be limited to a deity, either. I proffer no explanation for the origins of any life or any life forms
except my kids
which the ex continues to claim really are mine...but which I claim are really the result of her liaisons with extraterrestrial life forms. (The court believes her.)<br /><br />It is not necessary to see evolution for the theory to have some validity. With what is now known, it is possible to use computers to model changes and effects that are likely to exist, as well as those that would likely never exist. Tremendous efforts have been expelled on modeling the nuts and bolts of life. The modeling can be compared to known empirical data
bingo! New experiments are designed for concepts that are modeled
bingo! Life forms that could never exist on earth are modeled and subjected to stimuli and studied. Nothing has ever been found that has even a remote hope in hell of suggesting that maybe it might evolve. Nothing!<br /><br />Whenever a life form is discovered and it doesnt fit the model of evolution it is classified as an exception. Every unique plant and animal on the islands of Hawaii is classified as an evolutionary exception. They accomplished their evolution within a 10,000-year period. The pencil urchin, found all over the world, is an exception, too. It is the only animal in all the oceans that is said to have accomplished half a million years of evolution inside of 10,000 years.<br /><br />Dinosaur design: none of the skeletal structures of dinosaurs have enough chest cavity to allow for a lung structure large enough to support the tissue mass of the animal in the earths atmosphere today. (Forget Jurassic Park, it aint gonna happen.) Probably why the animals died out; rapid changes in the atmosphere (specifically, a reduction in atm pressure reduces the oxygen molecules available.) Slow changes and they would have evolved
they did not. Every dino was equipped with 4 nostrils. Of all the reptiles on earth today, only one has 4 nostrils. If it is a descendent of a prehistoric critter, his larger cousin has never been found.<br /><br />To change from 4 nostrils to 2 requires a change in chromosomes. No life form can support a different chromosome structure from its own. Thats why dogs cannot impregnate cats. Furthermore, if we implant a dog embryo into a cat, the embryo immediate aborts. The idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds isnt going to fly. On the outside chance that something really did survive with altered chromosomes and 2 nostrils, was it male of female?
yeah
you are going to need one of each. Welcome back at the gates of the school of creationism.<br /><br />Based on what we now know about chemistry and biology, it does not appear possible for something to evolve.<br /><br />There is no scientific evidence anywhere that anything ever evolved, or that anything can ever evolve. None. From what is known, it seems unlikely there ever will be, either. I believe the theory of evolution will eventually be relegated to close-minded people.<br /><br />If you look at living entities in whole, it is easy to imply similarities and deviations, etc. Thats the way Darwin saw them and it is understandable how he came to the initial conclusions he did. But much more is now known about the nuts and bolts of what defines a living entity; what a cell can and cannot do
stuff Darwin never knew, stuff that now has to be considered also.<br /><br />If you want to take this thread into the unknown, consider this: the ability to clone a living structure cuts a bias into the linear thought that is evolution. Does it disprove evolution? Or does it support the theory? Creationists have an easy pass on this one.<br /><br />But creationism is not without its vulnerabilities, either. If science gets to the point that a patent is issued for creating a life form, creationism is going to be challenged unlike anything that happened with Darwins theory. That is exactly where science is headed
and ironically, its disproving evolution along the way.<br /><br />A little over a year ago, France proposed all countries should come clean to the worlds population about what is going on with extraterrestrial visitations. While the insinuation was inescapable, they did stop just short of stating, yes, it is happening. If any government takes that bold step, the battle is on for creationists. It will not be enough to simply declare other intelligent life forms are further creations of the almighty
they will need to answer the question, do they sin? and the implications of answering either way is overwhelming.<br /><br />At the end of the day, those with faith will continue to believe in evolution; and those with the other faith will continue to believe in creationism; and those with yet another faith will look to the stars and say Scotty,
<br /><br />Darwins idea definitely rocked the world
but it remains one huge leap of faith
literally, now a religion more than ever
and should only be taught as such.<br /><br />The argument is long past the Darwin vs. God station. It is now about what fact(s) you choose to ignore.
I repeat, what are secularists afraid of? Can't you see that it is being taught from a biased viewpoint when it simply ignores alternate theories believed by the majority of human beings? And let's be honest, the vast majority of secularists are really atheists or agnostics and I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with indoctrination be it secularism, humanism, Buddhism, Judaism or Christianity. I am all in favor of laying it all out there in an unbiased fashion and letting the individual decide. That is the only way to ensure true learning.
But that's only the evolutionary arguement of the dilema...Originally posted by snapperbait:<br />Yeah but SBN, you're an obvious "expert" on chickens, and if'n i remember correcty you said in that "chicken or egg" thread a while back that the first chicken, or was it the egg, was the result of two non-chickens, or something to that effect?
And thus lies the problem. Those alternate theories are not "theories". Within the realm of Christianity, Creation is not a theory. They do not say "this is how God may have created the world". It is presented as fact, in direct contradiction to other beliefs and "theories". Evolution is the only theory that is truly presented as a theory.<br /><br />The arguement of Secularism being a religion is absurd to me. That's like saying "Unbiased is as much an opinion as conservative or liberal" By very definition, unbiased is not an opinion. By very definition, secularism is not a religion, it is the LACK of religion or religious aspects, bias, or influence.<br /><br />How would you feel about laws against eating cows, as some religions prescribe? Nobody would stand for it. When making laws, they cannot have any religious affilation. The same goes for education. <br /><br />It appears that where we truly differ in opinion is that you believe we can teach ALL theories of creation from each religion. I don't see that as a practical solution.
<br /><br />Since I am not religious, the theory of creationism means nothing to me, however, if by some bizarre fluke it turns out to be the truth, I am fine with it. Just like if when I die there just happens to be a God, I'll be fine with that too. I won't go to hell for not believing in God because I live to a moral standard that most religious hypocrites could only dream of living to, and I know God will forgive my one sin of not believing in Him. What the heck, He is forgiving all those boy fondling priests and church-going wife beaters right?
