Should intelligent design be taught alongside the theory of evolution? Please answer this Poll.

Onenownews ^ | 10-11-08 | Onenownews

[OneVike]

This is just a short note to get this poll going in the direction it should be moved in

Question
"Should topics such as creationism or intelligent design be taught in public schools alongside the theory of evolution?",/P>

Right now the poll has had 26224 responses
Yes ---- 35.08%
No ---- 64.43%
Undecided ---- 00.48%

[Alamo-Girl]

Well said, slnk_rules! Thanks for the ping, AndrewC!

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

I didn't set any goal posts.

I didn't say you did, I said you moved them.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was responsible for every conversation you've ever had on this subject. I was addressing one limited point. If you have no response to that point, fine.

I didn't link an electrical engineer Einstein, I linked a chemist.

I said before that I picked a page from your precious list at random and read the specialties of the scientists on it; that's where I found the electrical engineer. Got it now, genius?

Once again you refuse to tell us what's religious or UN-scientific about his point that a clump of cells doesn't seem to do anything without some kind of tweaking.

I never said anything about your chemist's statement. Should I start color-coding my posts or something so you can keep track of who said what?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

“You have no idea how true that statement is. Almost all scientists and a large fraction of engineers vote democratic because they cannot abide theocratic and unscientific control of what they are to think.”

So ‘smart people’ are so scared that their neighbors’ kids might learn something other than evolution, they vote for Obama?

“The counter to a scientific theory is not a religious belief, but factual evidence that calls that theory into question.”

The root problem is that religious parents are coerced [through taxes] into sending their kids to a communal school. They want some say in how the commune is run. That’s the root problem. But rather than fix the problem logically — through school choice — ‘smart people’ vote for Obama.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I notice there are no responses to your post. I can understand why. Your posts, it would appear, are raising this debate to a level beyond our information level.

I’m actually not a six ‘solar day’ creationist. In fact, I put more faith in post-Noah scriptures myself. But the difference between me and others is that statements questioning evolution don’t rile me one bit. In fact, I embrace the thought of humans needing to expect more of themselves than animal responses.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

It's fine for people to believe in evolution. I just don't think that evolutionists should be able to muzzle the rest of the commune. That's what a public school is — a commune. Since the parents obviously can't afford better than the cesspool, and since most evolutionists are happy to keep down school choice, then the parents should have some say in how the communal commode is run.

[Elsie]

(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)

Black lines on a skull graphic does not constitute fact of lineage or transition.

[Elsie]

This means that parents with larger brains and morphology that favored bipedal locomotion had more reproductive success than parents that had smaller brains and whose morphology favored quadruped locomotion.

They ALWAYS say this - with NO proof that it is true.

[Elsie]

We are scientifically trained, but otherwise unbiased observers on the sidelines, except our unbiassedness runs out when we read the abject hillbillyish can't find a pair of shoes ignorance displayed by people like you - just to deliver another outrageous ad hominem to stir you into another outrageous claim - about what science is or how it works.

Oh Kay....

[Elsie]

When none of that works, change the subject.

"What you need to understand, uh, is that, uh, in the past, uh, problems were noted but, uh, not addressed by those in office. When I, uh, am President (PBUH), those, uh, concerns will be, uh, addressed and changed to eliminate the negative effects of, uh, all those years of the way things were.

Then, you understand, things will NOT be like they, uh, were, for they will then be different."

(Full details of my, uh, plan, can, uh, be found, uh, on my website.)

--EvoDude(I, uh, approve of this message; for it is based on the latest, uh, knowledge we have.)

[Elsie]

I’m MELTING!

[AndyJackson]

Black lines on a skull graphic does not constitute fact of lineage or transition.

Let me ask you a question?

If the theory of evolution stated that we can explain the evolution from early life of the entire biosphere with the sole exception of man, who, clearly not evolved from apes, must have been created sui generis by God, would you know be less antipathetic to the theory of evolution? Is your antipathy the notion that you might share a genetic link to a lower animal?

[DoctorMichael]

Wacky stuff you can find on the internet:

(See my Tagline)

[AndyJackson]

It's fine for people to believe in evolution. I just don't think that evolutionists should be able to muzzle the rest of the commune.

Well there is where you and I differ. I don't believe it is fine for people to believe in evolution.I also don't believe in muzzling the population.

The theory of evolution is not a belief system. It should not inform moral choices in human society which is the outward function of any belief system - and yes I am aware of the theories of social Darwinism, which is a toxic meme as Daniel Dennett would call it.

You see, the theory of evolution is merely a scientific theory explaining the order of living and fossil species as we observe them around the globe, and I don't want anyone to "believe in" scientific theories. I don't believe in Newton's laws, or the quantum theory. I accept them as explanations of physical phenomenon because when they are tested, such as every time a drunkard forgets to brake his car at a traffic light, they are proven out.

And so there is my argument with creationists or IDers. They are trying to counter a scientific theory with a belief system. If you want to teach religion and morality you should be able to do so in a philsophy class, or a history of religion class, or even a religion class. But creationism, a belief system no more belongs in a biology class than the theory of evolution belongs in a high school mathematics or gymnastics class.

I would have absolutely no problem with a biology class being required to teach both the theory of evolution and the theoretical and observational difficulties with the theory.

I guess one of the things I have a hard time understanding is how the anti-evolutionists can maintain their / your belief system. How can you can go out into nature, look at the animal and plant kingdoms and their variations around the world and not understand that everything is where it is the way it is because it is fit for the environment in which it is living. Tigers don't live in Africa because their markings make them stand out rather than blend in on the African savanah. Elephants don't live in places where it snows because they freeze and can't eat (we used to have Mastadons to do that job), etc. etc.

What is so disturbing about the idea that there is an order in God's world? I don't get it.

[AndyJackson]

what’s taught to their kids via the NEA liberals who know so much better than they do and hijack the courts to sue them into silence if they dare disagree with their ideology.

Scientists have as little use for the NEA as anyone around here, but there is a critical difference between what you want teachers to do and what we want teachers to do. You want teachers to teach a belief system - what to think. We want teachers to teach math and writing - how to think.

And when you go to the legislature or the courts to force the schools to teach a belief system in science classes, then you should lose over and over and over again.

[AndyJackson]

it’s the failed NEA agenda that’s gotten our youth where they are today on math, science, English

We are in agreement. Our social order does not, however, turn on whether or not kids are taught about evolution is school. It turns on whether our kids can think critically and reason through problems.

In fact I can imagine a world in which the subject never comes up in public schools whatsoever, because unless you are in one of a number of relatively narrow fields of practice taught in college and the graduate level, it is irrelevant to how you live your life.

[AndyJackson]

dismiss the scientist, no matter what his credentials, how long he’s had them, what solid research he’s done

And where you are wrong is thinking that the scientist's credentials matter and how long he has had them.

The only thing that matters is the solid research that he has done. Research means the work to develop a body of evidence (facts, experimental data) and a satisfactory explanation of why the data appears the way it does [a theory]. What you anti-evo maenads [another gratuitous and insulting ad hominem] never do is cite research papers that constitute "solid research."

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

“I also don’t believe in muzzling the population.”

“I would have absolutely no problem with a biology class being required to teach both the theory of evolution and the theoretical and observational difficulties with the theory.”

I think we are all in agreement there actually. Finally, some possible common ground. I agree that science should be restricted to scientific discussion. And observational difficulties free the mind from the shackles of conformity.

[metmom]

We are scientifically trained, but otherwise unbiased observers on the sidelines, except our unbiassedness runs out when we read the abject hillbillyish can't find a pair of shoes ignorance displayed by people like you - just to deliver another outrageous ad hominem to stir you into another outrageous claim - about what science is or how it works.

Which certainly calls into question your ability to remain unbiased in the scientific realm.

[metmom]

Speaking of stupid, is that post an example of the best scientific answer to the creation or ID position that you guys have?

You evos look like such rocket scientists when you post drivel like that.

[metmom]

Scientists have as little use for the NEA as anyone around here, but there is a critical difference between what you want teachers to do and what we want teachers to do. You want teachers to teach a belief system - what to think. We want teachers to teach math and writing - how to think.

On the contrary, we DO want to teach children how to think and not what to think. That's why most of us favor teaching creation and ID ALONG with evolution. We are not suing to have our *belief system* have the monopoly in the public schools against the continually expressed wishes of the parents and school boards.

Evolution is taught in private Christian schools and homeschools along with creation and those students are doing just fine according to test results.

It's suppressing the free exchange of ideas that is NOT teaching kids how to think for themselves.

You're absolutely right that the ToE is irrelevant to what most people do for a living and is not necessary. Considering the quality of education that exists in public schools today and the quality of the textbooks used, there's no reason whatsoever to presume that the ToE is being taught any better than any other subject that the mostly barely literate population is getting. If it's really necessary for the chosen degree program or career field that one pursues, they can learn all they need to at the college level and hopefully have it better taught. Although, I'm beginning to have my doubts about college education these days as well from what I've seen entering the workforce and some of the accounts related to me by my college aged son and daughter.