You know, to be fair, I think that if they can teach their religion in our classrooms, then we should be able to go into their Sunday schools and teach atheism. C'mon now, teach the controversy.
I've got a better idea.... How about we teach evolution as what it truly is: A THEORY (a scientific concept which cannot be proven beyond any doubt). At least that's what evolution was two decades ago when I last took biology..... A THEORY. The problem is that all too many of the people who have chosen science over faith wish to teach evolution as Scientific LAW rather than Scientific THEORY. Maybe if those people would get off their high horses and stop claiming they know what happened at the beginning of time beyond any reasonable doubt, the religious people wouldn't be so quick to pull their children out of your classes.
Ah yes, another person who does not understand the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. THEORY 1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984) 2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984). 3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990). 4) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]). 5) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995). [HR][/HR] LAW 1) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979). 2) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995). [HR][/HR] So to sum up, a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, while a theory explains how nature works. So please don't mix up a theory with a hypothesis which is an educated guess. They are totally different.
My apologies. I did my best to sleep with my eyes open through most of the science classes I was forced to take in high school and college. I knew I wasn't going to have any need for them in my life. So you can prove it beyond ANY reasonable doubt, correct? I'd love to see you try that. Apparently not, and to be totally honest, I really couldn't care any less.
Nothing can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you do not care about the proper usage of terms within the appropriate context, I suggest refrain from posting and save the bandwidth for those who do wish to educated themselves (for free too). Do you have anything more to add?
Look everyone, it's Bill Nigh the Science Guy!! So tell us, does evolution disprove Creation? (Hint: Dawkins says it does)
Sadly, you missed out on the training in THINKING and RATIONAL thought, which would have served you WELL throughout your life. This is plainly a lie, or you wouldn't be advocating that children be taught fairy stories out of a book instead of real science. I guess this is a case of a guy who thinks "I was allowed to be uneducated so I am going to make sure the kids of today are uneducated too so they can't make me feel bad with intelligence or clear thinking!"
This is the way creation really happened. Creation of the World - Norse Mythology on the Creation of the World http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/creationmyths/a/11083199Norse.htm We know that the Egyptians built the pyramids and that they were smart. So their creation story has to be the correct one. http://www.egyptartsite.com/crea.html Of course the Chinese were very sophisticated when everyone else was living in caves so their story just has to be the correct one. http://www.unicorngarden.com/creation.htm The Oceanic people lived in the eternal sea. They have to be right about this stuff. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/o/oceania_polynesia_creation_myths.html
Old Earth Creationism is certainly more respectable than Young Earth Creationism. The former uses observations the latter denies them all.
A SCIENTIFIC THEORY is based upon facts, laws and hypothesises, is testable and falsifiable, has no evidence that can't be worked into the theory (has never been demonstrated to be false) and due to the overwhelming amount of evidence in support is considered the best hypothesis (all theories are hypothesis but not all hypothesises are theories) available. It is however not considered proven as proof is considered impossible in science. Science is based upon probability not absolute certainty. A SCIENTIFIC FACT is a verified observation. A SCIENTIFIC LAW is a simple statement, quite often mathematical, that describes a scientific fact. A SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS is an attempted explanation of a phenomenon. A scientific theory is the top of the pyramid. There is nothing in science above a theory. On the other hand a scientific fact sits at the bottom. Theories > facts
If nothing can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt than Science is simply another Religion based on FAITH. There's nothing wrong with that, until Science starts telling people that it is something other than Faith wrapped in equations and 37 letter, seven sylable words. I'm 38 years old and I've done quite well for myself without it, thank you very much. Personally, I don't care WHAT they're taught (other than any children of my own); so long as one set of unprovable fables isn't allowed to demand that everyone believe it over any other set of unprobable fables. I wouldn't hire most of today's high school graduates to dig a hole for me, so I'm not too concerned about that. In fact they're all correct in one way or another. But to understand that you'd have to buy into my view of religion, faith, and spirituality which would take longer than I have to explain and which doesn't go over very well with most spiritual people, nevermind the more scientific-minded individuals.
Nope. Faith is the belief in the unverifiable. Science is verifiable. Do you have anything else to add?
Science gave you your job, your life, the computer your typing your trite on, and your health. Your mistake is assuming something that doesn't exist, exists. Nothing can be proven 100% true. Nothing at all. All we have to go on is what works. Science does. Enjoy your proud ignorance and false certainty.
My health has always been marginal, my job is much more related to art than to hard science, and I'd be just as happy without the PC as I am with it. Your mistake is assuming that something doesn't exist simply because you can't put your hands on it or see it through a microscope. Faith is the true Power in the Universe. I always have and I will continue to, thank you very much.
Science verifies things beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a difference between that and absolute certainty. Do you have anything else to add?
