Yay for Kansas!

[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?

[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....

[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]

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]

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

[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.

[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!

[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.