Yay for Kansas!

[momoffuzzyfaces]

I heard on CNN this morning that Kansas has passed a law that now if schools teach the theroy of evolution, they must also teach the theroy of an intelligent creator too. They must give "both" views. They will not be teaching "religion" just that some believe the universe and world were created, not just an accident.

It's always puzzled me why some people want to believe they came from monkies anyway. Tomatoes and apples are both round and red and tomatoes were once known as "love apples", but they never evolved from each other. :confused: :)

[.sarah]

LOL. I don't know that I believe either, really. It bugs me sometimes that I don't know how we got here. :(

[JenBKR]

YAY! I think that's great. I never believed in evolution, always took the spiritual road. All schools should have to point out both views.

[Edwina's Secretary]

What about other ideas on the origin of the universe? Every religion has one. Should ALL of them be taught? Why just evolution and the Judeo/Christian ideas?

[Randi]

I think it’s essential that children are taught the different beliefs in school, so that they can form their own opinion. When I was in school in he 50ties, we learned about Christianity, but I also vaguely remember that someone mentioned we descend from the apes, but I don’t remember much info on science. :(

It’s interesting to see what people believe in different parts of the world, In USA and parts of Asia, it seems a lot more are religious, while in large parts of Europe, a bigger percentage of people are more interested in science.

I believe in science more than religion myself. :)

[Lady's Human]

ES, they are not teaching Genesis, they are teaching intelligent design. There's a big difference. Intelligent design is taught as someone/something designed and created the universe, not strictly the judeo christian concept.

[JenBKR]

What about other ideas on the origin of the universe? Every religion has one. Should ALL of them be taught? Why just evolution and the Judeo/Christian ideas?

I don't think they are actually teaching the Bible, just creation from a divine point of view. :)

[JenBKR]

Oops! Lady's Human - I think we posted at the same time ;)

[Edwina's Secretary]

I hope they teach the constitution as well!

Fails to answer my question though! What if there is another theory? Say...unintelligent design. Must that be taught?

Here's one a very dear friend of mine sent me!

Intelligent Design (http://www.venganza.org/)

[JenBKR]

Fails to answer my question though! What if there is another theory? Say...unintelligent design. Must that be taught?


Um...what exactly would that be?

EDIT: I think I misread your question - oops! I guess it's hard to say what would happen IF there was another theory, obviously they don't have to teach it since only evolution is taught in most public schools now. For such a loaded question such as where we come from, all credible theories should be taught and kids should be able to make up their own minds.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Sorry...I edited it into my reply above...

But seriously...unintelligent design....think of mosquitos....what is intelligent about the design of them????

[Lady's Human]

Actually, it can be argued that Mosquitos are very intelligent design. They are efficient disease vectors, hence a built in curb on population.

I think leaving the debate in the schools at intelligent design vs. evolution would be sufficient. Two competing theories would be taught, leaving kids to figure out their own beliefs.

[Maresche]

I have no problem with intelligent creation being taught in public schools as long as it is in a Religion class not a science class. In my mind there are no cold hard facts that this is the way the world was created, you have to take it on faith. While evolution may not be correct as we currently understand it, there are certainly more facts contributing to it veracity (fossils, skeletons, genetics, etc).

In my opinion (which does not coincide with Mr. Webster) a theory can be backed up with some form of verifiable fact.

A belief cannot be.

I have no issues with anyone who believes intelligent creation in whatever religious guise it falls under. I have a problem with teaching children something as a fact when it is more an article of faith. Intelligent design does have a place in public schools, but not in the science lab.

[caseysmom]

Very well said Maresche and I completely agree.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is a belief. It does not belong in a science curriculum. And you fail to answer the question. Why stop at two?

[momoffuzzyfaces]

I hope they teach the constitution as well!

Fails to answer my question though! What if there is another theory? Say...unintelligent design. Must that be taught?

Here's one a very dear friend of mine sent me!

Intelligent Design (http://www.venganza.org/)
They won't be teaching the Bible or any other "religion" just that some believe there is some intelligent design. They will not say that is THE answer. I'm sure if some want it taught that we all came in space ships from Mars, that may be considered too, eventually. Of course, then we are back to the where did the Martians come from problem!!! :eek: ;)

By the way, is not the Flying Spaghetti monster intelligent?

I think the main idea is to present two independent views on creation and leave it to the individuals to decide for themselves what they believe.

[Edwina's Secretary]

If the mosquito as a means of population control is an example of intelligent design...I must question just how intelligent it is. Woldn't it be more intelligent simply to design a smaller population?

But MOFF...with all due respect...Intelligent Design IS a religious belief. And if you start teaching beliefs...where do you stop?

[Lady's Human]

ES, in the strictest scientific terms, both evolution and intelligent design are no more advanced than hypotheses. Frankly, given the lack of evidence suppoting either one, they both belong in philosophy, neither belongs in the science lab. Most theories are backed up by factual evidence, and have at least been partially proven in a lab. Laws have been tested and proven in the lab or on paper (or both). Something like the origin of life is at current unprovable by either means. Scientists have re-created the original theoretical primordial soup and come up with nothing becoming life in their experiments.

[Lady's Human]

ES, evolution has been called the largest religion of modern times by some, in other words evolution is a belief, not a proven law or fact.

As to using the mosquito as an example of intelligent population control, it's very simple. A disease carried by the mosquito eliminates the weak members of the population, leaving the strong to reproduce, and keeping a broad gene pool available for breeding.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Well...since I believe the earth is flat I would like that taught in schools as well.... as an alternative theory of course. And there are people who believe you can make gold from lead...so we better teach that as well after all....it hasn't been proven that you can't! It just hasn't been done correctly yet. And there are people who believe that some races are inferior to others. So should we teach that as well? When do you stop.

Religion should be taught in the home....or the religious school....

[momoffuzzyfaces]

If the mosquito as a means of population control is an example of intelligent design...I must question just how intelligent it is. Woldn't it be more intelligent simply to design a smaller population?

But MOFF...with all due respect...Intelligent Design IS a religious belief. And if you start teaching beliefs...where do you stop?
Ah, but evolution is a BELIEF too. It has never been proven to me that it exists! When someone can take a watch, take it apart, put it in a bag, shake the bag, and the watch put itself back together, that's when I'll believe in eveloution. After all, that watch has much more of a chance of becoming a watch again, since it already has all the parts that make it a watch. Evolution says one species can become an completly different one all by itself. Dogs don't evolve into cats or horses or bunnies or anything but dogs.

As for the earth being flat, you can fly around it, proving you are misguided. :)

[Lady's Human]

ES:


The earth is flat- this can be proven false on paper and in practice.

Gold from lead- Can be done in theory, but would require far too much in the line of resources to make it practical. Can be proven on paper, and the transmutation of elements has been done in physics labs. Most of the super heavy elements in the atomic table are the results of lab experiments.

The superiority of one "race" over another can be proven false with statistics, and every population follows the bell curve in some form.

Evolution, however, cannot be proven. Darwin's work showed the possibility of micro evolution (evolution within a species charted through the similarities and differences in bird populations) as opposed to macro evolution (one species evolving into something else completely). We have observed micro evolution (the coloration of sooty moths in europe) but have not observed macro evolution. Without proof it remains a hypothesis, and hence belongs in a class on western philosophy, not science.

[Maresche]

Without proof it remains a hypothesis, and hence belongs in a class on western philosophy, not science.

As long as intelligent design is there too (instead of the science lab), I'd be willing to call that a compromise.

[JenBKR]

IMO it would be best if evolution was not taught at all...at least not in a science class.

[JenBKR]

As long as intelligent design is there too (instead of the science lab), I'd be willing to call that a compromise.


I like that idea!

[Lady's Human]

Maresche,

That's exactly what I meant, sry.

[Edwina's Secretary]

And where is the evidence for Intelligent Design? I asked a guy once what you do about fossils, etc if you don't believe in evolution. He replied those were placed by the devil to entice us to not believe.

But it is not a religious thing. Yeah, right.

[JenBKR]

Fossils don't always necessarily prove or disprove evolution - and just because one person connected the devil with fossils does NOT make that any kind of belief. I am a believer in intelligent design, but that doesn't mean that I believe that fossils are not real. Actually, a more popular belief is that fossils are simply interpreted incorrectly.

No one said that intelligent design is not a religious idea, just that it is not a purely Christian idea.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

And where is the evidence for Intelligent Design? Well, when I look at the billions of stars all in the sky, keeping their own orbits and not a sky full of mass chaos, I can't believe it just "happened by chance". Or that they evolved into perfect order. Or why is the earth tilted just enough to keep us from burning up one way and from freezing to death if tilted the other? Didn't "happen by chance" either. If both these happened by chance, I should have won the lottery long ago!

Fossils are in Kansas too. I see them all the time. They don't prove evolution. Just that there were once animals and plants that used to be here but died for some reason. ;)

[smokey the elder]

The problem with verifying macro-evolution is one of time scale. Human beings do not live long enough to directly observe it. Humanity has not existed long enough to historically observe it.

Micro-evolution clearly DOES exist. Drug resistant bacteria and viruses DO exist, and were selected for by hardy individuals surviving penicillin or AZT or what have you. A bacterium's "generation" is 20 minutes. A cat, in best case, is one year. This is a factor of 26800 difference. Humans would have to have a historically continuous record of 26800 years to observe an "evolutionary" change in a cat. and that is if it occured in ONE generation. Say it take 100 generations; 2.7 MILLION years.

I rest my case. :)

[Randi]

Just an interesting link:

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)

[momoffuzzyfaces]

I still do not agree and never will. Just because something changes form does not mean evolution is a fact. Heck! I've gained and lost weight but that still doesn't mean evolution is a fact. I'm not becoming another species.

As for man evolving from an apelike creature: heck, take a caveman, give him a bath and shave and hair cut and dress him in modern clothes and he'll look just like a lot of men I've dated!

And I'm still glad that Kansas is going to make them teach both or neither!!! ;)

Maybe the best thing is to teach neither. When kids want to know where earth came from the teachers can just tell them to go ask their parents! Then teachers can get back to teaching important things like sex ed. :rolleyes:

[moosmom]

As for man evolving from an apelike creature: heck, take a caveman, give him a bath and shave and hair cut and dress him in modern clothes and he'll look just like a lot of men I've dated!

MOFF,

Now THAT'S some I can relate to!!!

[tatsxxx11]

Thank you for posting that information, Randi! Very timely as I was just about to post regarding what is included in your link, the common misconception that the term "theory," a scientific term, implies UNPROVEN fact and that is not the case. "Facts" are the data, theories are the "structures of ideas" that EXPLAIN and INTERPRET facts. A theory does not make a proven or believed fact any less valid! It's just a means of explaining the "fact." I just bring this up to clarify...just because evolution is discussed within the parameters of "theory," one should not infer that the validity of the concept itself is in question.

The "fact" being debated here, evolution, does not "go away" or lose validity, merely because different theories (explainations) of that fact are discussed or debated. Indeed Darwin's theory of evoluation was not the first to be put out there...it was his explaination, his theory to explain the "fact."

To quote Dr. Stephen J. Gould...

"Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome."

Ok, point being, apples don't float in air, we ALL believe that; they fall, every time:D But how to explain why they fall, that is the "theory." One's theory as to why they fall may be debated, the fact that they do and always will fall, FACT.

And facts are not absolute certainties either. That concept does not exist in science.

Another misconception of the current theory of evolution is that homonids, the human species to which we belong, in all it's forms, (evolutions) from austraelophythesis to homo erectus to homo sapiens, evolved from apes. That is not the case. Humans did not directly evolve from apes according to current theory. Nor did apples evolve from tomatoes;) The ape species and homonid species, cohabitated simultaneously and evolved separately, along the evolutionary time continuum. How does/can one dispute the fossil record? Cro Magnom, Neanderthal, Homo erectus...all similar but descernably distinct species of the homonid genus and clearly differentiated from the ape species in that all were bipedal, with large skulls, brains, the most distintive characteristics that separate man from apes.

And one point I'd like to bring up that has not as yet been discussed, the fact that one's belief in God/higher being and evolution are mutually exclusive. I am a Chrisitian of the Protestant faith and believe as many others whose lives are deeply rooted in their belief in God, from religious scholars to rabbis, to ministers to priests, that one can believe in both a divine creator and evolution.

I hope all opinions are welcomed here:)

[momoffuzzyfaces]

Yep, Sandra, all opinions are welcome here as far as I'm concerned. I think my biggest problem though with evolution is the "big Bang" theroy. I just can't buy that out of nothing, something just blew up and created the earth and universe. And that little cells just one day, started to multiply for no reason, and created every living thing with such perfection!
If one species doesn't change into another (and I don't believe for a second they do), how could that even happen?

If people want to believe they have monkey family members, who am I to argue? :) That's their choice.

I just think it's only fair that teachers not state as fact that evolution is what everything is about as a fact. They should at least mention that some believe everything was created by some form of intelligence. And while some argue that it can't be proven, they can't prove it wasn't either, I don't care how many fossils they wave at me. :D

I personally can't see why that upsets people. :D

[Edwina's Secretary]

Because any way you look at it...intelligent design is religion. Religion and science have been at odds throughout history.

This country was founded on...among other principles....separation of church and state.

Teach what you want at home and church...but not on the public nickel!

I find the idea of teaching intelligent design in public schools just political correction run amok! ANd once you begin down the slippery slope....

[Lady's Human]

ES, the slippery slope of politic al correctness took over the political institutions of this country long ago, unfortunately. Sex ed in schools without parental consent (at younger and younger ages), bans on prayer even if student driven and not lead by teachers, military speech codes (I can't curse at the lower enlisted, it might offend them), I could go on and on with the PC BS in society, but I don't believe this is PC. I think it is just backlash against it.

Again, both evolution and intelligent design belong in western philosophy class, not the science lab.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

[QUOTE=Edwina's Secretary]
This country was founded on...among other principles....separation of church and state.[QUOTE]
Actually, this country was founded on freedom of religon. When the Pilgrams were booted out of England because of their faith, they came here. The big debate over separation of church and state didn't happen until the Democrats and Republicans landed. ;)

Belief in an intelligent design is not a religon unless you worship it.
I believe in air but that doesn't make it a religon.
It's a person's choice whether they worship anything or not. And no one will be telling anyone else to worship what or who ever the intelligent designer is.

[Lady's Human]

The teaching of intelligent design would not be a violation of the First amendment (BTW, ES, the Constitution was the second attempt at a unifying set of laws, the Articles of Confederation came first) as the first amendment states:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

respecting an establishment of religion, ie no more Church of England. The idea of separation of church and state actually came from a letter written by Jefferson well after the writing of the Constitution.
Intelligent design as stated does not state that a particular deity created everything, just points out that that is one theory of how we got here.

[Edwina's Secretary]

It is so sad. I was just reading about Iraq where the religious police are assaulting young people on the street for walking...a man and a woman together. So now we have our own religious police. People who speak in a patronizing manner to others, is so typical of the Political Correctness crowd.

I am not free from YOUR religion if I must hear about YOUR religious belief in a PUBLIC school. Intelligent design = a supreme being = religion.

Denying this is a religious issue is disingenuous (lacking in candor).

How it is so many people have managed to pass through public education with the teaching of evolution and without intelligent design without turning them all into atheists?

Why the hangup on evolution? There are many areas with potential for different interpretations!

And why do you need to swear at subordinates? :D

[Lady's Human]

The first amendment speaks of freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Again, the amendment merely eliminates the possibility of a formal state religion, as in the Church of England. The teaching of intelligent design as a possibility does not teach a religion, it merely acknowledges the possibility. It also does not teach a particular religion.

Why the need to swear at subordinates? It gets their attention IMMEDIATELY, and in some cases that immediate call to attention may save their lives. We train with real ammo, real explosives, and inattention may cost lives, which to me is far, far more important than their feelings.

[JenBKR]

The first amendment speaks of freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

EXACTLY!! Thank you - that is something that people can't seem to understand. That was something that my mom taught me at an early age.

In high school, when I learned about evolution (and the big bang theory) in science, I pretty much thought it was a bunch of bunk and didn't believe it. I just think that where we came from is a much bigger question, one that should be taught at home (or at least not in a science class, I still like the idea of both ideas being taught in philosophy ;) ).

Actually, political correctness is NOT a Christian idea, at all. In fact, Christians are the ones being burned by political correctness. For example, we have to be so careful celebrating Christmas, and Pittsburgh went as far as to call it the "Sparkle Season" to not offend anyone. HELLO! Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus - that is the meaning. If you don't like it, don't celebrate it.

[caseysmom]

ES, the slippery slope of politic al correctness took over the political institutions of this country long ago, unfortunately. Sex ed in schools without parental consent (at younger and younger ages), bans on prayer even if student driven and not lead by teachers, military speech codes (I can't curse at the lower enlisted, it might offend them), I could go on and on with the PC BS in society, but I don't believe this is PC. I think it is just backlash against it.

Again, both evolution and intelligent design belong in western philosophy class, not the science lab.


I have had to sign a note for sex ed for my kids every single year.

[Maresche]

I have had to sign a note for sex ed for my kids every single year.

So they get it through the school or so the don't get it? Just curious.

[caseysmom]

Yes they do get it through the school but only after I consent and we can go view the movies and all the materials they will see.

[Edwina's Secretary]

The first amendment speaks of freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Actually LH, you are correct. What you miss is the next step in the logic. Public schools are an arm of the government. Teaching religion in the public schools is the government teaching (i.e. establishing) a religion.

That is why private religious schools are permitted in this country. The government does not and should not endorse one religion over another.

btw...the school board in Pennsylvania that tried this?....all were voted OUT yesterday.

[JenBKR]

Hmm, I thought we had a good compromise going ;)

[Lady's Human]

ES, we're going to have to agree to disagree, as usual. The teaching of intelligent design does not violate the first amendment for one very simple reason; it doesn't promote one particular religion, which is what the first amendment defends against.

Caseysmom:

There is a case in court right now in which a school in Mass had parents sign blanket permission slips for a class, and went into sex ed, which was NOT on the permission slips. This is not unusual.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

First let me say, I respect and love all of you, no matter what your opinion on this or any other subject. :D

I can see where some do not want to be "subjected to religious teachings" (though I will disagree that intelligent design is religious teacing)
HOWEVER: we should not be "subjected to the teaching of evolution" either. Some of us think it's just a bunch of hoo haa. Shouldn't we have the same rights as you? not to be subjected to something WE don't agree with or want to be subjected too? :D

[smokey the elder]

Hmm..maybe we shouldn't be "subjected to" teaching of mathematics, chemistry, physics... ;) A lot of those concepts are abstract, too.

[JenBKR]

First let me say, I respect and love all of you, no matter what your opinion on this or any other subject. :D

I can see where some do not want to be "subjected to religious teachings" (though I will disagree that intelligent design is religious teacing)
HOWEVER: we should not be "subjected to the teaching of evolution" either. Some of us think it's just a bunch of hoo haa. Shouldn't we have the same rights as you? not to be subjected to something WE don't agree with or want to be subjected too? :D

I totally agree with all of this. I really don't want to make any enemies here :) I think we can agree to disagree on this one.

[JenBKR]

Hmm..maybe we shouldn't be "subjected to" teaching of mathematics, chemistry, physics... ;) A lot of those concepts are abstract, too.

But we are talking about where we came from - the biggest question in most of our minds. I think that's a little different...

[momoffuzzyfaces]

Hmm..maybe we shouldn't be "subjected to" teaching of mathematics, chemistry, physics... ;) A lot of those concepts are abstract, too.Hey, that would be fine with me! I was subjected to advanced math!!!!! It was horrible!!! I still have nightmares about it!!!! :D

[Edwina's Secretary]

The teaching of intelligent design does not violate the first amendment for one very simple reason; it doesn't promote one particular religion, which is what the first amendment defends against.

Sorry LH...you are wrong here. It promotes A RELIGION specifically that is the concept of a creator. It does not belong in a public school any more than astrology does. It does not meet the definition of a science.

My issue hre is not the concept but whether it is appropriate for the government to be endorsing a religious tenet. Leave that to Iran.

So we will agree to disagree.

[catland]

Yes - lets ban the teaching of evolution! And while we're at it, lets get rid of some of those other pesky so-called "science" courses like chemistry and physics. Molecules? Atoms? Quarks? If I can't see them with my own eyes, then I'm not going to believe them. I for one never need the Heisenberg principle or the second law of Thermodynamics in my daily life.


However, a theology course that did compare and contrast and search for common themes on the various world creation myths would be a most facinating class. There does seem to be an overwheming desire for us to understand where we come from.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

Yes - lets ban the teaching of evolution! And while we're at it, lets get rid of some of those other pesky so-called "science" courses like chemistry and physics. Molecules? Atoms? Quarks? If I can't see them with my own eyes, then I'm not going to believe them. I for one never need the Heisenberg principle or the second law of Thermodynamics in my daily life.


However, a theology course that did compare and contrast and search for common themes on the various world creation myths would be a most facinating class. There does seem to be an overwheming desire for us to understand where we come from.
Evolution is only a theory, not an exact science so shouldn't be taucht as such. I never ever took a chemestry class (not even in college) and don't feel a bit deprived !!!

Sure we need to know where we came from. How else will we know where we are going? or when we get there? ;)

[JenBKR]

Molecules? Atoms? Quarks? If I can't see them with my own eyes, then I'm not going to believe them.

Hmm, that's kinda what I say to people who don't believe in God... ;)

[lbaker]

I posted something a few weeks ago about the theory of "Intelligent Falling" that disputed the "theory" of gravity. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down." I believe this too was being debated in Kansas. :p

[tatsxxx11]

Connie, dear friend, you're doing a great job keeping this civil and on track...not easy to do as this is a very passionate subject for debate:eek: And I'm not taking sides here when I say the following, just trying once again to clarify the definition of the term theory:)

Your comment about evolution, that "it's just a theory." Please go back and read what I posted yesterday, I worked hard on that:D People continue to repeatedly misuse the term, believing, and leading others to believe, that a "theory" is something yet to be proven. That is not the case!

Everyone in science class is taught what a theory is...a theory is just one EXPLAINATION of something that is fact. It does not mean that "it," the fact, lacks credibility or is invalid. You can still believe in Creationism, Intelligent Design and not use that argument..."It's just a theory.":) Not even taking sides on this issue!!! Just drives me nuts that the term theory has come to be so misused or misunderstood and used as weapon in their thesis', by those on both sides of the issue.

For argument's sake here, let's assume that man "evolved," that evolution is the fact... Now, the means by which man evolved is the "theory!" The apple will fall when dropped; a fact. The common THEORY is that it falls via gravity. But be it by gravity (one theory) or by some other means, explained by some other theory, fall it will!:D

And Lady's Human...the last time I was in comparative religion class, philosophy, we weren't discussing alleles, DNA, genetic drift, isoenzymes, morphology, radiometric dating, etc. Hard science belongs in the science cirriculum, not in the humanities. When and if the Intelligent Design theory of creationism includes hard, imperical scientific data, (I don't know if does or does not) then it too belongs in the science lab. Regardless, all benefit when both sides of the debate are freely discussed in a forum of some sort...like this:)

[CathyBogart]

I would like to point out that evolution does not state that we descended from apes, or, even more ridiculously, that we descended from MONKIES. It says that all of the great apes (humans, chimps, gorillas, orangs, bonobos) descended from a COMMON ANCESTOR.

That's a BIG pet peeve...when people use the "descended from monkeys" thing against evolution....because if you pay attention it says nothing of the sort.

Also, every science teacher I have ever had has mentioned both theories, and almost all of them seem to think that they go hand in hand pretty well. I'm inclined ot agree.

[CathyBogart]

ES, we're going to have to agree to disagree, as usual. The teaching of intelligent design does not violate the first amendment for one very simple reason; it doesn't promote one particular religion, which is what the first amendment defends against.

No, it promotes the view of a very narrow margin of religions. There are thousands of creation stories around the world, and a class teaching a bunch of them would be awesome. :) I did a research paper on creation theories of different peoples once and it was enthralling.

[JenBKR]

There are thousands of creation stories around the world, and a class teaching a bunch of them would be awesome. :)


That would be a very interesting class.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

I would like to point out that evolution does not state that we descended from apes, or, even more ridiculously, that we descended from MONKIES. It says that all of the great apes (humans, chimps, gorillas, orangs, bonobos) descended from a COMMON ANCESTOR.

That's a BIG pet peeve...when people use the "descended from monkeys" thing against evolution....because if you pay attention it says nothing of the sort.

Also, every science teacher I have ever had has mentioned both theories, and almost all of them seem to think that they go hand in hand pretty well. I'm inclined ot agree.
Then why do they wave those charts with a monkey gradually growing into a human under our noses? You know the monkey, ape, neanderthal, caveman, modern man chart????

By the way, a COMMON ANCESTOR, means they decended from the same thing. If the chart shows a monkey first, they would have decended from a monkey. And why did some of them stay monkeys?

Sandra, I use the term theroy for evolution because to me, evolution is not a proven fact. A species may adapt to a degree, but when I was in school, back in the stone ages (with nary a caveman in sight), we were taught evolution meant that species could evolve into another one aka monkey into man. Of course, we ARE in Kansas! ;)

[Barbara]

Hmm..maybe we shouldn't be "subjected to" teaching of mathematics, chemistry, physics... ;) A lot of those concepts are abstract, too.

I'm afraid you will easily win with that proposal ;) I always hate when people can easily say "Oh I always HATED math".

[CathyBogart]

Then why do they wave those charts with a monkey gradually growing into a human under our noses? You know the monkey, ape, neanderthal, caveman, modern man chart????

By the way, a COMMON ANCESTOR, means they decended from the same thing. If the chart shows a monkey first, they would have decended from a monkey. And why did some of them stay monkeys?

I've never seen a chart like that....it's horribly inaccurate. IF there is a common ancester between humand and apes it likely had the characteristics of all of them to a small degree, and then because more specialized over time depending on geographic isolation and other factors until it became a bunch of different species.

IF there is an ancestral type of ape, no ape (or monkey) living today would resemble it because it would have had to change and adapt to the changing environment. There are many many fossils that COULD be an 'ancestral type' or something along the path between the ancestral type and today.