Evolution not the only thing to be taught anymore?

[IrishEyes]

I saw this link and knew it should be part of our discussion. It talks about a school district in Wisconsin that has opened the door for alternatives to evolution to be taught in public schools. Please take the time to browse the article, then tell us what you think.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11....ap/index.html

Here is a small excerpt from the article, which can be found at cnn.com:

GRANTSBURG, Wisconsin (AP) -- School officials have revised the science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism, prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that the decision be reversed.

Members of Grantsburg's school board believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.

[Freethinker]

That's right, We need to teach that trolls pull people down as well as the Theory of Gravity. That little gnomes live in our heads and paint pictures along with the Theory of EMF/ Photon "light".

There is not a single other SCIENTIFIC process to challenge Evolution Not a single one.

Unless someone here is the first in the world ever to offer a viable, factually supported, predictive, falsifiable alternative.

(And yes Irish, I was aware of this, and I thought only Southerns allowed such ignorace!)

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
I saw this link and knew it should be part of our discussion. It talks about a school district in Wisconsin that has opened the door for alternatives to evolution to be taught in public schools. Please take the time to browse the article, then tell us what you think.

I'll tell you what I think all right.

What these, and other people doing the same with other school boards in America, don't realise is that the theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life, and that "Intelligent Design" or Genesis creationism are not scientific theories. Many people think creationism is a scientific theory, even though it doesn't predict much and it mostly can't be tested. The parts of creationism that has been tested have all failed miserably: Neither the Universe nor the Earth are 6000 years old; all species did not exist at the same time; some human cultures predate the age of the Earth according to creationists, etc.

Another thing to think about is why creationists, especially in the western world, only wants the Genesis myth to be taught in schools as if it was science. Why not the Norse mythology as well? Could it be because they have not been raised to believe in that particular set of myths and fantasy stories? If people wish to believe in these stories, then go ahead. But keep them away from science education, and keep it away from children. It's completely unfair to attack them and make them believe all kinds of rubbish under the disguise of science. Have they no shame?

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: Freethinker
That's right, We need to teach that trolls pull people down as well as the Theory of Gravity.

Are you perhaps referring to the Intelligent Grappling theory?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Stargazer
Are you perhaps referring to the Intelligent Grappling theory?

ROTFLMAO!

Thanks, I had not run across that. I am only familier with the Micro/ Macro Gravity debate.

That bowling balls fall is an example of micro-gravity.

Macro-gravity is only a theory.

Anyway, bowling balls only fall IF YOU LET GO OF THEM. They don't fall on their own.

Remember that nobody has seen gravity, and so it's just a belief.

Gravity is not falsifiable, so it can't be scientific.

People use gravity to support evil things.

Anti-gravitationists deserve equal time.

Gravity violates the third law of thermodynamics (that nothing can fall all the way).

Some of the world's greatest scientists are anti-gravitationists.

I will post the theory of anti-gravitationism as soon as I get it worked out.

[Stargazer]

Hehe, macro/micro gravity? I wouldn't be surprised if this could be applied to every theory in science... Strange thing, though, is that theories for gravity are rarely under attack as the theory of evolution often is.

[sanctus]

Sincerely I did not read the article.

I'm from Switzerland, and I have to say that, even if I see that europe gets more and more americanized, I hope we never get to the point teaching creationism anywhere else as in theology!! Sorry to say it, but I remember when about 4 years ago, I first heard about creationism, I was really amazed how ignorant people can be!

This is not meant as an insult, just that if you believe in creationism you ignore many things!!!

There "creational views" I can accept, for example the one of a very religious friend of mine who studies physics as well: he says that he believes god created live in being the activation energy to form the first molecules.

But believing that Adam and Eve really existed, sorry that's something I can't comprehend. It's not like believing in god, that easy to comprehend why people believe no matter if he exists or not.

[BlameTheEx]

Personally I rather like Russian style determinism.

If a child is born black its because the mother was a slacker. It would be white if she had really tried. Lol.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
Please take the time to browse the article, then tell us what you think.

The article provides no background for the decision, but nevertheless it is a tragedy.

When the argument is that it is necessary to teach more than one "scientific" theory then they are completely out of their league. This is a classic example of creationists and ID-followers to use "scientific methods" to claim that they teach "science" when what they have is a doctrine based on a religious opinion.

Evolution _is_ science. Evolution may be discussed, investigated, tried, and tested.

Creationism can only be assumed and argued about. All attempts that I have seen so far to argue for creationism either start by claiming that Darwin was wrong (and thus showing they know nothing about evolution) or by claiming (as the article does) that life is too complex to have developed without a creator. The first is simply ignorant, the second is usually more philosophical, but they always end up bashing evolution.

Anyway, that's what I think.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx
Personally I rather like Russian style determinism.

If a child is born black its because the mother was a slacker. It would be white if she had really tried. Lol.

Can't say I ever heard that one before!