Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

BBC ^ | Thursday, 4 October 2007

[Resolute Conservative]

Really, falsify it then.

[elfman2]

"Evolutionist has ever published specific peer-reviewed falsification criteria for any aspect of Evolution."

What’s the “published specific peer-reviewed falsification criteria” for the theory of gravity?

[Southack]

Where there is no bias in a system, there is no ID.

Next...

[ericc4]

Call me dumb, but is there a different between Creationism and Intelligent Design?

One of them is honest and up front about the fact that their theory is based in religion, and the other tries to hide it by pretending to be science.

[wastedyears]

Glad I’m not a teen anymore.

[elfman2]

“You’re wasting your time.”

I can’t help it.

[Southack]

So you admit that there is no published falsification criteria for Evolution (and wish to change the subject)?!

Gee, perhaps you’ve just touched upon one reason why it’s so tough to teach Evolution in a classroom...

[MrB]

Your focus is too narrow on your “groups”.

The biggest supporters of evolution are those that seek to deny the existence of a Creator to whom they will be held accountable for their choices.

[Resolute Conservative]

There is bias, it is called cognitive thinking, we have it other species doesn’t.

[scottdeus12]

“I’m sure the creationists on FR will be appalled to find they have something in common with fundamentalist Muslims.”

I’m a creationist, and I’m not appalled. Muslims are humans as you are...so you have something in common with them as well....does that appall you?

[Southack]

Yes, there is bias! Very astute of you.

...but ID is falsified where there is no bias.

[gracesdad]

“Muslims are humans as you are..”

Not accordng to quite a few Freepers (I’m not one of them).

[wastedyears]

Understood, thanks

[G Larry]

Guilt by association?

Seems like they’d like to equate creationism with Muslim theology, so they can discredit creationism.

[elfman2]

"So you admit that there is no published falsification criteria for Evolution (and wish to change the subject)?! Gee, perhaps you’ve just touched upon one reason why it’s so tough to teach Evolution in a classroom..."

So you admit that there's no published falsification criteria for the theory of gravity? (and wish to change the subject) Gee perhaps you've just touched upon one reason why your criteria for something being scientific is nonsense, a desperate and transparent attempt to hold one theory to a higher standard than all others, even though it doesn't contradict Christianity, simply because it also supports an alternative explanations to your own faith based one. That's what insecurity does to people.

[Boxen]

I hope you’re going to answer his question. I’m not a scientist, so I’ve never heard of “peer-reviewed falsification criteria.” Some examples would be really helpful.

Thanks!

[Leatherneck_MT]

“I find it fascinating when political correctness runs into these dilemmas.”

ain’t it a hoot? :D

[Southack]

Theories that have no falsification criteria aren’t scientific.

This particular thread is about Evolution in the classroom...a theory that has no published falsification criteria.

You seem to want to discuss *other* theories, instead. I understand why you are so reluctant to stick to the topic at hand, but please try.

[elpadre]

It seems to me that a teacher has the responsibility to teach, not just the prevalent view, or required information, but also all other possible, contrary views as well.

The preponderance of evidence wins.

Isn’t that what scientific inquiry is all about?

[Squawk 8888]

some Christians could stand to learn a lot from the Muzzies on this one.

In a word, no. The reason Muslims object is because their culture is diametrically opposed to all forms of scientific inquiry. (Some) Christians object to evolution because they believe the answers are wrong; (most) Muslims object because they believe that it's wrong to ask the questions.