Yay for Kansas!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CathyBogart

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smokey the elder

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by momoffuzzyfaces

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.