Debate over evolution now allowed in Tenn. schools

[SniperFire]

A complex cell could easily form from the 'ooze' over hundreds of millions of years of combinations and recombinations of elements and compounds,

Hilarious, really. But I think it is worthy of debate.

 

[Si modo]

You want all to accept the underlying validity of your untestable theories on blind faith, as fundamental tenets of scientific discussion, but deny a discussion on other possible competing theories.

Regardless of what theory ends up to be true, it is absolutely part of science.

Actually, it's not science, by definition. It's ABOUT science, but not science.

It IS great subject matter for philosophy, critical thought, etc.

If there was an intelligent force behind the creation of the universe, said force would have PLENTY to do with science.

But that is debatable. The youngsters get a chance to discuss that now in Tennesee.

No, it's NOT debatable, if one cares about definitions.

It's a great example of how to demonstrate to students the definition of scientific theory, and what it is not, though.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is an excellent topic for discussion and debate in our institutions of learning.

Not when there is zero evidence for one side of the debate.

Zero evidence?

How foolish.

DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

That's not evidence.

Where is the evidence of a creator?

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals want to teach children that there is no God and cannot be a God. That's what they really want. Educators have promoted themselves to a position that they must undo whatever the student has learned in the home and church. It isn't that evolution is unquestioningly scientific and that's why it must be taught. What they want to instill is that it's wrong to even make the question as to whether evolution is the only correct theory and correct in all respects.

When men believed the earth was flat, it was wrong to even pose the question of it being round. Evolutionists want to put an end to asking the questions. Evolution is much like global warming. It's wrong to even pose the question as to why the models are turning out to be wrong. It's heresy to the faith. A question as to whether evolution is the only correct answer AND is correct in all respects requires a faith equal to the faith in creation. A faith without question.

You want science classes to have debates on the shape of the Earth?


lol

If it was wrong to ask the question about whether or not the earth is flat then, it is wrong to question the theory of evolution today.

A true scientist welcomes questions. Men of faith do not.

 

[8537]

That is debatable. Would not the force behind an Intelligent Design be perfectly aligned to and instrumental to science?

what force is that?

This is an excellent topic for discussion and debate in our institutions of learning.

You want our high school students trying to figure out what force drives a hypothesis that is untestable and has no evidence?

 

[SniperFire]

No, it's NOT debatable

The Church in the Middle Ages used to say the same thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That is debatable. Would not the force behind an Intelligent Design be perfectly aligned to and instrumental to science?

what force is that?

This is an excellent topic for discussion and debate in our institutions of learning.

Then present one piece of evidence for the existence of that intelligent unseen force.

 

[SniperFire]

what force is that?

This is an excellent topic for discussion and debate in our institutions of learning.

You want our high school students trying to figure out what force drives a hypothesis that is untestable and has no evidence?

No, silly. I want young minds to have the opportunity to question your flat-earther presuppositons.

 

[Si modo]

what force is that?

This is an excellent topic for discussion and debate in our institutions of learning.

You want our high school students trying to figure out what force drives a hypothesis that is untestable and has no evidence?

And is not falsifiable. Thus, nothing scientific about the theory of ID.

 

[SniperFire]

what force is that?

This is an excellent topic for discussion and debate in our institutions of learning.

Then present one piece of evidence for the existence of that intelligent unseen force.

DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

 

[Si modo]

No, it's NOT debatable if one cares about definitions.

It's a great example of how to demonstrate to students the definition of scientific theory, and what it is not, though.

The Church in the Middle Ages used to say the same thing.

I fixed my post that you incompletely and conveniently misquoted. It's in bold. And it speaks to your current comment.

 

[SniperFire]

This is an excellent topic for discussion and debate in our institutions of learning.

You want our high school students trying to figure out what force drives a hypothesis that is untestable and has no evidence?

And is not falsifiable. Thus, nothing scientific about the theory of ID.

Do science classes discuss 'The Big Bang'?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals want to teach children that there is no God and cannot be a God. That's what they really want. Educators have promoted themselves to a position that they must undo whatever the student has learned in the home and church. It isn't that evolution is unquestioningly scientific and that's why it must be taught. What they want to instill is that it's wrong to even make the question as to whether evolution is the only correct theory and correct in all respects.

When men believed the earth was flat, it was wrong to even pose the question of it being round. Evolutionists want to put an end to asking the questions. Evolution is much like global warming. It's wrong to even pose the question as to why the models are turning out to be wrong. It's heresy to the faith. A question as to whether evolution is the only correct answer AND is correct in all respects requires a faith equal to the faith in creation. A faith without question.

You want science classes to have debates on the shape of the Earth?


lol

If it was wrong to ask the question about whether or not the earth is flat then, it is wrong to question the theory of evolution today.

A true scientist welcomes questions. Men of faith do not.

People did not question the Flat Earth theory with theories for which there is zero evidence, or with so-called theories that had already been categorized as myths.

 

[Si modo]

You want our high school students trying to figure out what force drives a hypothesis that is untestable and has no evidence?

And is not falsifiable. Thus, nothing scientific about the theory of ID.

Do science classes discuss 'The Big Bang'?

Yup. It's falsifiable, among other things.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I kind of have mixed feelings about this.

Of course, creationism is absolute garbage, trying to sneak in Religion under the guise of psuedo-science.

But that said, I think the schools refusing to talk about it isn't going to stop little Johny Funditard from thinking it's true. He'll just assume they are hiding "the truth", since that's what they say at church. So I have no problem if the schools spend one day addressing it, and then addressing the flaws, then moving on to real science.

So you have the discussion in a comparative religion class...not in a science class. It's not science, it's faith.

I don't worry that little Johnny might be exposed to the notion of Creationism. I'm worried that he will get out of 12 years of school and no one will bother to teach him to read because his teachers don't give a flip, and can't be fired.

I'm sure he'd still qualify for an "internship" with.....

...."Diamond" Pat Robertson.

 

[8537]

You want our high school students trying to figure out what force drives a hypothesis that is untestable and has no evidence?

And is not falsifiable. Thus, nothing scientific about the theory of ID.

Do science classes discuss 'The Big Bang'?

The Big Bang is supported by evidence and is falsifiable. As it turns out, no one has found the evidence to falsify it.

 

[SniperFire]

You want science classes to have debates on the shape of the Earth?


lol

If it was wrong to ask the question about whether or not the earth is flat then, it is wrong to question the theory of evolution today.

A true scientist welcomes questions. Men of faith do not.

People did not question the Flat Earth theory with theories for which there is zero evidence, or with so-called theories that had already been categorized as myths.

Spontaneous irreducible complexity is perfect evidence of the ID theory.

 

[8537]

If it was wrong to ask the question about whether or not the earth is flat then, it is wrong to question the theory of evolution today.

A true scientist welcomes questions. Men of faith do not.

People did not question the Flat Earth theory with theories for which there is zero evidence, or with so-called theories that had already been categorized as myths.

Spontaneous irreducible complexity is perfect evidence of the ID theory.

It's also a lie made up to support ID theory, but you keep glossing over that inconvenient fact. Or you got your science knowledge from the museum in Tenn where Dinos and humans walk side by side in time.

 

[SniperFire]

And is not falsifiable. Thus, nothing scientific about the theory of ID.

Do science classes discuss 'The Big Bang'?

The Big Bang is supported by evidence and is falsifiable. As it turns out, no one has found the evidence to falsify it.

Big Bang, of course is not falsifiable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is an excellent topic for discussion and debate in our institutions of learning.

Then present one piece of evidence for the existence of that intelligent unseen force.

DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

That is not evidence.

That is begging the question.

That is framing the debate of the question of whether or not something complex has to be designed by someone or something

by demanding that the debaters accept the premise that something complex has to have been designed by someone or something.



As I said, there is NO evidence for intelligent design.