Topeka Tussle

[Cheese]

Hard to believe they still waste valuable time debating this...

Eighty years after a famed courtroom battle in Tennessee pitted religious beliefs about the origins of life against the theories of British scientist Charles Darwin, Kansas is holding its own hearings on what school children should be taught about how life on Earth began.

De-volution

[Mike F]

Honestly, I defy anyone to take the time to understand the underlying premise of Natural Selection and then come back and say it's not true. It's just so simple and logically self-evident that the only way to dismiss it is to stay ignorant of what the underlying theory is.

I mean even the frikken Pope accepted that evolution is more than just a theory!

[RougeUnderoos]

What the hell is going on down there?

It's not even just that the earth is only 6000 years old. They also believe in Noah's Ark. Literally that one guy put 2 or more of every single animal on earth onto a single boat (that he made, with his hands, w/o the benefits of electricity) and floated around for a year. In other words, they want to teach stuff that obviously did not happen.

What happens when they get to university? I know they don't teach this stuff there. Well, maybe at the kookier schools, but not the big mainstream state schools. So they'll learn all this mumbo jumbo in high school that will be completely refuted in post-secondary? That's good planning.

[Cheese]

hmmmm...I wonder if this phrase has any correlation to the political battles going on in another thread...

Subsequent elections altered the membership of the school board and led to renewed backing for evolution instruction in 2001. But elections last year gave religious conservatives a 6-4 majority and the board is now finalizing new science standards, which will guide teachers about how and what to teach students.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Yep, better make sure we revise that whole "science" thing to make sure it complies with out religious text.

[/sarcasm]

[Flames89]

While I am definitely an Evolutionist, I believe if you look deep into the Intelligent Designers - they will present questions that we are unable to answer, therefore lending credibility to their theory (in their eyes).

From what I have heard from the ID'ers, evolution to a degree is a given - but the fact of how all the mathematical and other systems dispel the random patterns initially thought in nature means that somewhere somehow intelligent design existed.

Seems prepostorous to me - however, what initially made me look into this was how there could be incredibally intelligent scientists who were also religous? And there are many, who are not "whack-jobs" ...

[Displaced Flames fan]

I'm not a man of faith, personally, but I have no problem whatsoever marrying evolution and natural selection with what is written in the Bible about the creation. To me, the two can work hand in hand and I thing anyone who blinds themselves to the possiblitly of one or the other being truth is a fool.

As for the debate referred to at the beginning.....

Issues of faith should be left to the home. Science should be taught in schools, but it should not be taught in a manner that refutes the possibility of creation.

[Looger]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@May 2 2005, 06:17 PM
What the hell is going on down there?

It's not even just that the earth is only 6000 years old. They also believe in Noah's Ark. Literally that one guy put 2 or more of every single animal on earth onto a single boat (that he made, with his hands, w/o the benefits of electricity) and floated around for a year. In other words, they want to teach stuff that obviously did not happen.

What happens when they get to university? I know they don't teach this stuff there. Well, maybe at the kookier schools, but not the big mainstream state schools. So they'll learn all this mumbo jumbo in high school that will be completely refuted in post-secondary? That's good planning.

this is why the universities down south brainwash kids with extreme left-wing views, and chase right-wing student organizations away with pitchforks.

ah, the irony!

honestly, americans are setting themselves up to be second-class citizens in their own country, more and more technical positions are going to immigrants.

having education systems bogged down with BS and de/re-programming will NOT HELP.

[peter12]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@May 2 2005, 06:15 PM
I'm not a man of faith, personally, but I have no problem whatsoever marrying evolution and natural selection with what is written in the Bible about the creation. To me, the two can work hand in hand and I thing anyone who blinds themselves to the possiblitly of one or the other being truth is a fool.

As for the debate referred to at the beginning.....

Issues of faith should be left to the home. Science should be taught in schools, but it should not be taught in a manner that refutes the possibility of creation.

I totally agree.

The amount of sheer coincidences that occur in nature cannot be just accidents or random freak chances.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@May 2 2005, 05:15 PM
Issues of faith should be left to the home. Science should be taught in schools, but it should not be taught in a manner that refutes the possibility of creation.

What do you mean: it should not be taught in a manner that refutes the possibility of creation?

In my experience evolution is simply taught on it's merits, the underlying premises taught, the evidence for it, and the outstanding questions. No religious issues are mentioned.

However, it can't be taught to any degree of completeness without contradicting, implicitely, many theories of creationism. A complete teaching of evolution requires it to be explained that the process took millions of years, that species emerged over time from previous forms, that species are all, to a greater or lesser extent, related, etc. All of these contradict a literal creationist view, but are unavoidable.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by peter12@May 2 2005, 06:40 PM
I totally agree.

The amount of sheer coincidences that occur in nature cannot be just accidents or random freak chances.

No offense, but you clearly never bothered to learn what the theory of natural selection proposes before deciding it must be wrong.

A nice summary from Wikipedia

Natural selection can be expressed as the following general law:

• IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
• IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s) [i.e. some traits are influenced by genes], and
• IF there is variability of traits, and
• IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population [i.e. more individuals are born than survive to reproduce],
• THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
• THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive

The result is the evolution of species.

If you agree that the 4 IFs occur in the natural environment, the you believe in evolution by natural selection.

And while we're at it, a nice point - counterpoint of pure evolution vs. intelligent design

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@May 2 2005, 06:15 PM
I'm not a man of faith, personally, but I have no problem whatsoever marrying evolution and natural selection with what is written in the Bible about the creation. To me, the two can work hand in hand and I thing anyone who blinds themselves to the possiblitly of one or the other being truth is a fool.

As for the debate referred to at the beginning.....

Issues of faith should be left to the home. Science should be taught in schools, but it should not be taught in a manner that refutes the possibility of creation.

Depends on what you mean by creation I guess.

Some of these people want literal creationism (with Adam and Eve, the snake, the boat...) taught in public schools as if it's a viable alternative or "equal" theory which it obviously is not.

You can't teach accepted science in a manner that doesn't refute that kind of creationism, can you?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Mike F+May 3 2005, 02:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ May 3 2005, 02:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@May 2 2005, 05:15 PM
Issues of faith should be left to the home. Science should be taught in schools, but it should not be taught in a manner that refutes the possibility of creation.

What do you mean: it should not be taught in a manner that refutes the possibility of creation?

In my experience evolution is simply taught on it's merits, the underlying premises taught, the evidence for it, and the outstanding questions. No religious issues are mentioned.

However, it can't be taught to any degree of completeness without contradicting, implicitely, many theories of creationism. A complete teaching of evolution requires it to be explained that the process took millions of years, that species emerged over time from previous forms, that species are all, to a greater or lesser extent, related, etc. All of these contradict a literal creationist view, but are unavoidable. [/b][/quote]
I couldn't disagree more.

Maybe a more detailed or specific account of evolution contradicting what's in the bible would help me see where you are coming from.

All I meant, however, by the sentence you quoted is that instructors should avoid discounting religious theories as a method of teaching evolution.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@May 3 2005, 03:19 AM

Depends on what you mean by creation I guess.

Some of these people want literal creationism (with Adam and Eve, the snake, the boat...) taught in public schools as if it's a viable alternative or "equal" theory which it obviously is not.

You can't teach accepted science in a manner that doesn't refute that kind of creationism, can you?

There can't be that many out there dim enough to interpret the Bible on a literal plain, especially Genesis.

Those who want it taught at any level in school have a problem IMO. Those who want it taught on a literal level....6 days to create everything, etc....shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a schoolboard.

I kind of adressed that in the beginning though....I don't have a problem marrying the two. The way I interpret what is written about creation in the bible meshes quite nicely with what I've learned about evolution and natural selection....not to mention geology. Think about it, if you're trying to tell the story of intelligent design to the masses is there anyway to do so (2000 years ago) without dumbing it down considerably?

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@May 2 2005, 08:32 PM
There can't be that many out there dim enough to interpret the Bible on a literal plain, especially Genesis.#

Those who want it taught at any level in school have a problem IMO.# Those who want it taught on a literal level....6 days to create everything, etc....shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a schoolboard.

A gallup poll in November 2004 showed that almost half of the U.S. population believes that human beings did not evolve, but instead were created by God -- as stated in the Bible -- essentially in their current form about 10,000 years ago

Link

As for this comment:

Maybe a more detailed or specific account of evolution contradicting what's in the bible would help me see where you are coming from.

All I meant, however, by the sentence you quoted is that instructors should avoid discounting religious theories as a method of teaching evolution.

You'll have to tell me what you feel the religious/biblical interpretation of evolution is before I can tell you if evolution can be taught without discounting it.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Well, I find the findings of the poll difficult to believe. When you give people 3 very narrow statements and tell them to pick the one closest to what they believed your results are going to be skewed. Why was the phrase within the last 10000 yrs included in the only non-evoltuionary statement? What level of change constitutes evolution? Is Neandretal man human? It's way to complex an issue to sum up with 3 narrow statements.

Irrelevant to the point at hand though.

I don't have an interpretation of creation in the bible, but I can say that I don't believe that if a God created everything that he did it in 144 hours. I don't believe all he had to do was say let there be light and there was light. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the account of something that unfathomable would have to be dumbed down considerably to appeal to the masses.

My point is that to there is nothing in either theory that eliminates the possibility of the other being truth. If were going to use people who interpret the bible on a word by word literal basis as the keystone of an argument against what I said then you win I guess.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@May 2 2005, 09:46 PM
Well, I find the findings of the poll difficult to believe.# When you give people 3 very narrow statements and tell them to pick the one closest to what they believed your results are going to be skewed.# Why was the phrase within the last 10000 yrs included in the only non-evoltuionary statement?# What level of change constitutes evolution?# Is Neandretal man human? It's way to complex an issue to sum up with 3 narrow statements.

Irrelevant to the point at hand though.

I don't have an interpretation of creation in the bible, but I can say that# I don't believe that if a God created everything that he did it in 144 hours.# I don't believe all he had to do was say let there be light and there was light.# As I mentioned in an earlier post, the account of something that unfathomable would have to be dumbed down considerably to appeal to the masses.

My point is that to there is nothing in either theory that eliminates the possibility of the other being truth.# If were going to use people who interpret the bible on a word by word literal basis as the keystone of an argument against what I said then you win I guess.

Well if you don't want to use that view of the biblical interpretation, but can't give me a concise statement of what you believe then we can't have any type of discussion at all.

As for the poll, IMO it actually does a pretty good job of giving options which virtually anyone can feel comfortable choosing. One one end you have pure Dawinian evolution, on the other end strict literal biblical doctrine, and in the middle man changing over time but still some role for god. It won't hit some people's beliefs bang on, but can you honestly see some people who don't actually believe in the strict biblical interpretation picking that option because the median option was so far from their true belief? I can't imagine what that belief would be.

My point is that to there is nothing in either theory that eliminates the possibility of the other being truth.

I can't see how you can say that without a firm grip on what you actually believe happened.

Evolution can't be taught completely without including the notion that billions of years ago in the primordial stew on some planet a little group of organic elements organized into a self-replicating structure that, over time, under the influence of natural selection, gave rise to all of the living things that are found and have ever been found on Earth.

If that doesn't contradict your religious based view then yes, both can coexist.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@May 2 2005, 09:32 PM
There can't be that many out there dim enough to interpret the Bible on a literal plain, especially Genesis.

Considering your location that is to me quite an interesting comment.

Reading these news stories up here I guess I jump to the conclusion that this creationist stuff is pretty mainstream stuff where you live.

[evman150]

I just finished reading Erich von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods?". Very interesting book.

Has anyone else read this book? It was popular thirty or forty years ago, not any more though I don't think.

Although some of his opinions are kind of out there, some of the evidence is pretty compelling. Why couldn't aliens have come to earth and engineered earthlings from apes into humans (shaped into the aliens' form)? And what would these aliens appear to the ancients as? Would they not be gods? Would their leader not be God himself?

Very interesting indeed.

[shoestring]

Evvy buddy! if we would have heard of him he might be heard of.
Dead is my bet.

We are in hell soon to die and go to heaven to come back to hell,here.
Better start improving it right now you guys. gals.