Skip to comments.Florida will teach evolution but only as theory
Posted on 02/19/2008 5:54:12 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger
click here to read article
And where has that happened in the last few decades?
You keep making those claims that creation is being taught in public schools and evolution hasn't been allowed in. On the contrary, evolution alone has been taught in public high schools for decades and creation not. It was that way when I was in high school in the 70's.
Show us where evolution has been kept out and what public high school textbooks have been teaching creation to the exclusion of evolution. The information should be available. Give us some sources to back up your hysterical, untrue claims.
My, oh my. How far has been the fall.
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.That sure sounds like "taxpayer funded education" to me. Your ecclesiastical appeal fails as a matter of history.
(The Northwest Ordinance, adopted July 13, 1787, by the Second Continental Congress, chartered a government for the Northwest Territory, provided a method for admitting new states to the Union from the territory, and listed a bill of rights guaranteed in the territory.)
Evolution is the only non-religious theory that offers an explanation of how we got to be where we currently find ourselves today.
Why is there a need for a "nonreligious" theory of origins? In the first place, your statement itself is not a statement of science. It is a philosophical statement about science that presupposes philosophical naturalism. You're just taking it for granted as an unargued philosophical bias that all events have purely natural causes. As long as you succeed in imposing apriori metaphysical constraints that by definition exclude any possibility of contrary evidence, I guess you can continue begging the question.
But why should government schools and judges in black robes be imposing metaphysical assumptions that automatically rule out the possibility that mind or spirit preceded matter?
In the second place, it is a logical fallacy to assume that because no alternative theory to ones pet version(s) of evolution seems to exist, that it/they is/are therefore true, because there is always the possibility of some countervailing data that has not been observed yet. Your a priori exclusion of any possible contrary evidence by mere definition, is the equivalent of insisting that a defendant may not establish his innocence unless he can produce a suitable substitute to be charged with the crime.
Do you even have a clue what the thread is about? Yesterday, the Florida school board for the first time, voted that the word "evolution" should appear in school science books instead of the "changes over time" clause that the forces of ignorance have been requiring in heir sneaky underhanded attempt to deprive students of an honest education.
Evolution was completely absent from high school text books from the time of the Scopes trial until about 1960, depending on the state. Even today, most textbooks relegate evolution to "optional" chapters, instead of presenting it as the central unifying concept in Biology. It's like teaching the distance of the planets without mentioning gravity.
But thanks to Dover, states are coming out of the dark ages. The Florida decision is a stunning defeat for the anti-science crowd, and if you check out the Discovery Institute blog, you will find that they have noticed this. Of course, without the Discovery Institute, this would not have reached legal resolution, and states would still be wimping out.
Who (besides you) is making these particular "arguments"?
Perhaps you could browse through the approximately 88,400 articles available here and point where the authors have indulged "negative theological appeals" and how their articles "hinge on a host of other philosophical beliefs that are extra-scientific."
I see you got pummeled by the made up by FRevos only used on FR definitions that are claimed to be widely used. They reject impartial, widely recognized reputable sources like Merriam-Webster yet expect people to accept their definitions as gospel.
Kind of like a little boys club where they have their own secret meanings for words so that if someone new comes in and doesn’t know how they’re used but uses the common definitions instead, they can mock and ridicule them and tell them how stupid and ignorant they are. It merely gives them a false sense of superiority.
Merely a matter of semantics. It’s not that they are actually just starting to teach evolution or anything new. Changing a word means nothing.
As far as evolution being kept out of the schools, that’s a crock. Creation has been bullied out of the schools long ago, to the point that if creation is even mentioned, school boards capitulate out of fear of lawsuits, evos foam at the mouth at the mere thought of anything having to do with any religion even coming near the school doors,(which shows their true agenda), and the ACLU starts salivating like a bunch of Pavlovian trained dogs.
And it is no win for public school students, because private Christian school and homeschool students who are taught creation instead of, or with evolution, consistently out perform public school students on standardized test, SATs and ACTs.
If the teaching of creation is really the bane and downfall of a good science education, then the public school students should have a better showing on those tests and there shouldn’t be so many high school graduates so woefully ignorant of science in general. Evos bemoan the state of science in public schools today and claim that more teaching of the ToE is needed to correct it, but the ToE has had a stranglehold on public education for decades to no avail. On the contrary, it’s only gotten worse.
All the dire, hysterical warnings about what will happen to this country if creation, or religion, is allowed to be taught in schools, have no basis and have no evidence to support them. Public education in this country was far superior to what it is today, when the Bible was allowed to be read in schools, prayer was allowed, and creation was taught. Adding those things back in can certainly not make public education any worse than it has become under the atheistic, evolution taught scheme.
Which explains why the US with its great Christian heritage and morals and values has been among the leaders in the world in scientific research. Right?
Perhaps then, you would care to explain why Newton, certainly known as a man who had deeply held religious beliefs, was able to create the scientific method.
Why wasn’t his faith a hindrance to his scientific inquiry?
Why didn’t the faith of other great men of science hold them back from making the discoveries they did?
They lived and worked in a culture far more saturated with religion and religious belief than we have today and yet they laid the foundations for much of modern science.
You have yet to demonstrate in any way how religious belief hinders education and scientific research and how it will result in a return to the Dark Ages.
Yes humans evolved from the big bang.
“This type of “micro-evolution” is not obviously going anywhere...”
So observable evidence of the evolution of species (Darwin’s point) isn’t evidence?
It seems you believe computers did as well.
You really should read a little before you try to discuss science. If you are genuinely interested in learning, look up the history of the word “soliton” (my screen name) and I will happily correspond with you, step by step, about how nothing becomes something and give you hundreds of real world examples that will prove to you that everything you can see or touch has “evolved” over time.
I am writing a collection of essays for my kids called “the essential meme” that uses “natural selection” as the engine allowing the universe to become aware of itself. It is 90% accepted science and 10% extrapolation.
>> Proofs are proved in observational fit to theory.
As an example: Gravity is proved by such as apples falling or planets in orbits whose dimensions and dynamics that are predicted to a workable enough degree by a theory. And so is Newton’s model proved. <<
Yeah... that was a distinction that shows how the Florida board is at least 100 years behind. Once we understood, in the very early 1900’s that mass, and thus grvaity, varies slightly when the objects are in motion, we realized that Newton’s equations would need modifications for very fast objects.
So Newton’s theory of gravity is absolutely not a fact - it is accurate only limited circumstances.
Fortunately those limited circumstances cover most every day earth behavior so Newton’s theories are still useful. We even have a name for older physics that does not take into consideration modern physics - “Newtonian Physics.”
So, sadly the Florida board just really doesn’t seem to understand facts versus theory.
LOL Oh please. We were discussing your post, and you know it.
Pure nonsense, any differentiation of species will be “lateral” until a selection event takes place. Then it becomes vertical.
>>Why wasnt his faith a hindrance to his scientific inquiry?
Why didnt the faith of other great men of science hold them back from making the discoveries they did?<<
I would say its because belief in God and science (including evolution) are not in conflict.
What is in conflict and is something Newton rebelled against is church dogma that makes scientific assumptions not based on evidence. Thus Newton was somewhat at odds with being a conventional English Christian but was a Christian.
For example he may not have believed in the Trinity and was accused of being a Rosicrucian.