Yay for Kansas!

[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 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.

I personally can't see why that upsets people.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.