"How should I know why they teach what they do? "
The question should be posed this way: Why is it so important for certain forces that Darwin's theory be accepted as fact?
Darwin's theory is provably false......but that question is the most important revelation
A pity you've never gotten to that realization.
It's called a theory for a reason.
So where do all the different animals come from? Or have I stumped you again?
It's taught as though it's a proven fact.
Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?
I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. So your turn, what's your theory to why there are so many different kinds of animals, where do they all come from?
"I never said it was a fact, it's a theory. "
It's presented as a fact. You may claim, now, that it is only a theory, but your posts imply the very opposite.
Now.....why is it so important that it be accepted as the truth?
It's the most plausible theory. What's your theory? Ashamed to say? Because even you think it's kinda dumb?
"It's the most plausible theory."
It wasn't even when he offered it a century and a half ago.
You're simply too easily led.
"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
.
To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“
The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski
Ok, but what's your explanation to all the different species? This copy&paste is all about Darwin, whom you dismiss.
Scientists dismiss Darwin.
“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles,
The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)
Ok, Let's dismiss Darwin. What's your theory for all the species? How did they come about?
What's the reason that Darwinism is applied to schoolchildren as fact?
So you don't want to say how you think all the different animals came about. So I'll assume that you think god just poofed everything into existence. Mainly because I can't think of any other way it could happen.
So you don't want to say why the operators of government schooling impose it on the unsuspecting as proven truth?
Is it because you aren't that brave, or you aren't that intelligent?
I didn’t go to public school, looks like you did, lol.
So god magically made the animals appear, I never would have thought that of you, because you like to think of yourself as the smartest one here.
You're the one changing the subject.
My question must be painful to you......you must really feel stupid.
I either stumped you again or you're too embarrassed to say how you think all the different animals came about. Throwing juvenile insults at me won't change that.
So, does god have a wand, or blink his eyes or something to make animals appear? How does that work?
I've made it clear that that is not a question for this thread.
Somehow, it suits you better to keep repeating that rather than admitting that you were tricked into accepting Darwinism.
So is there anything other than Darwinism?
"So is there anything other than Darwinism?"
Lots.
“Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in
The New York Times. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.
That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact.
He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning.
Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously,
as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty, it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”
“Gould nonetheless wrote a reply to Kristol that put this outsider firmly in his place. Gould denied that textbook bias was more prevalent in evolution than in other fields of science, denied that evolutionary science is anti-religious, and insisted that “Darwinian selection . . . will remain a central focus of more inclusive evolutionary theories.” Ibid
“The difficulties with both the micromutational and macromutational theories are so great that we might expect to see some effort being made to come up with a middle ground that minimizes the disadvantages of both extremes. Stephen Jay Gould attempted something of the sort, both in his 1980 scientific paper proposing a “new and general theory,” and in his popular article “The Re- turn of the Hopeful Monster.” Gould tried to rehabilitate Goldschmidt while domesticating his monster. Goldschmidt did not really mean that “new species arise all at once, fully formed, by a fortunate macromutation,” Gould explained, and what he did mean can be reconciled with “the essence of Darwinism.” Ibid.
“Almost half a century later, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II said that science had progressed to the point where “some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.” Nevertheless, the pope continued: “Rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theo- ries of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part be- cause of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reduc- tionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.” Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” October 22, 1996. Available online (June 2006)
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology ex- plained: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
FASEB Board of Directors, “FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs,” Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, December 19, 2005. Available on- line (June 2006) at:
http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/Evolution-Statement.pdf.
As we have seen, however, the descent of all living things from a common ancestor through unguided natural processes is not “based on direct observation or experimentation”—nor can it be. Many of Darwinism’s predictions about the fossil record, embryo patterns, and molecular comparisons have been “shown to be false”—yet it survives unmodified. And Darwinism is clearly not “universally accepted among scientists.” Darwinism is not a fact. Indeed, as Darwinists themselves define the word, it is not even a theory.” Johnathan wells
problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes in- stead of science classes.Ibid.
