It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Evolution Is A Theory Not A Fact Stickers Must Be Removed From Georgia Textbooks

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damned

This is your own reasoning, which is flawed, IMO. Sure, we can produce rather random mutations, but that's not evolution any more than cancer is.


You fault my reasoning with your opinion? You admit that we can create random mutations but deny that random mutations have anything to do with evolution? What kind of argument is that? I am afraid I do not know how to respond coherently to that kind of logic so I will just let your argument support my supposition.



As I've already explained, there's more than one aspect to evolution. The mechanism has not been proven, but biological evolution is a fact. We don't know why gravity exists, but it does. It's also considered fact. While I'm definitely open to new developments in evolution, I sure won't claim it's not fact as of yet. There's far too much evidence supporting it.


The mechanism by which a theory happens is supposed to be the proof of the theory. In the case of gravity we can observe the phenomenon. In the case of evolution all we can observe is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution or the evolution from one species to another has never been observed and is purely conjecture. A dog is a dog is a dog whether it is a poodle or a labrador. Never has a dog become a cat or any other species than a dog. Nor has any mechanism been proposed other than random mutation / natural selection by which this could take place. Hence you are claiming as fact something that is supported by only belief and circumstancial experiencial evidence.



Show me where it isn't true. Scientists, by nature, try to prove each other wrong, in order to find hard facts that simply cannot be disputed.

So do theologians.



There's absolutely no way to test, or even study creationsim. It's a dead end before you even start. Intelligent design is the same thing...just a different term.

It is obvious you have never taken time to seriously consider either of these two theories. Both can and have been studied scientifically using the Observation, Hypothesis, prediction, experimentation, conclusion methodology. If you truly want to understand your own scientific discipline you need to comprehend the tenants of other disciplines even if you do not adhere to their conclusions. Instead you have dismissed them without even knowing what research has been done on the issue. You do so because you are a humanist fanatic and hold an animosity toward science that comes from a different philosophy.



Philosophies based on religion are inherited. Others develope their philosophy from life experiences and learnings. Religious "philosophy" (if you can even call it that) is preordained, and forced upon children at an early age, in most cases. It is indeed a form of brainwashing. There is little originality or uniqueness in the process, IMO. It actually has a virus-like quality.


Such vitriol further displays a both a lack of understanding about what religion is and a fanatical hatred toward religious philosophy that smacks of intollerance. the reality of it is that we are all products of a blend of instilled, and experiencial values. We are all a blend of what we have been taught and what we experience. Both the humanist fanatic and the religious fanatic tend toward domatism attempting to imprint beliefs upon their adherents. In between those two extremes, however are those who come to sincere belief systems that allow for error both in themselves and others. Those who are fanatics will always flail away at others who do not think like themselves. They will denigrate the understanding of others who see the world a different way and try to belittle their beliefs.



Yes, it is. Religion is anti-progressive and anti-education. Religion has always denounced advancement and discovery. Fanatic? Pulease!
I see another religious fanatic taking offense to nonreligious views because they don't support your bible brainwashing. To the religious fanatic, it's more important that everything fit into the context of the bible, than to seek actual facts.


History stands against you on this issue since the greatest and most revered halls of education and instruction in our country were started and operated as religious enterprises. Colleges like Harvad and Yale are testiments to the exploration that religious philosophy has spawned. Religion, when adhered to, outside of rank fanaticism or organisational corruption, has proven to be a fertile field for scientific and cultural endeavor. This is especially true of the Christian religion which laid the foundation of freedom that has built this great country of ours and allowed for the greatest expansion of personal liberty and scientific endeavor in the history of this world. I do not intend to paint a golden picture claiming that no ill has come from religious philosophy for it is true that any philosophy can be twisted to evil intentions but by in large its effects have been positive.

I, by the way am not a fanatic and do not denigrate your belief system except where it is disrespectful to others. I am willing to debate the tenants of evolution , but I do so without malice or contempt for those who hold strongly to it. I personally believe that a multiplicity of philosophy is a path to understanding since it is only from a diversity of perspectives that a more perfect concept of reality is achieved.

That being said, if you wish to continue to paint me as an intollerant religious fanatic, be my guest but understand that all you are doing is displaying your own intollerance.




posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Sorry, I see no reason to even read your whole post. Anyone who associates religion with science, or even goes as far as to try to suggest that religion is a science, just annoys me. That is just ignorant.


We'll just have to agree to disagree. I can see this is just going to end up being the same circular argument all religious debates end up being.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 02:33 AM
link   
If i recall wasent the whole dark ages about religion and science. THe earth is round yo say? Burn him at the stake! :shk: religion has no business dictating science.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 04:17 AM
link   


Religion is anti-progressive and anti-education. Religion has always denounced advancement and discovery. Fanatic? Pulease! * * * * To the religious fanatic, it's more important that everything fit into the context of the bible, than to seek actual facts.


As to the first sentence, that's pure hogwash. It may be true more often than not. However, it is not universally true. You discredit yourself by posing such a broad generalization.

The second sentence may be truer. That's the nature of fanaticism. It's a form of deep seated insecurity.

As I said earlier, evolution is a THEORY. It is not demonstrable fact. Natural selection is an observable process. Evolution is a THEORY derived from observations of the operation of natural selection. Observations of the natural world show that natural selection, qua survival of the fittest, occurs (except among human competitors).

Those who say evolution is not a THEORY OF ORIGINS are off your rockers. Don't you read? Or if you read, do you fail to comprehend? If evolution was not a THEORY OF ORIGINS which purports to contradict and discredit the Biblical view of origins, there would be no conflict between creationists and evolutionists.

I suggest that you pay closer attention and make an effort to separate your authors' articles of faith from their scentific expositions. The two tend to come intermixed in the area of evolutionary THEORY and fool those who do not recognize these distinctions while reading and thus mistakenly accept as science what in truth is part science and part a leap of faith. Go back to your sources, read critically, and let us know if you still hold to the stated position.

There is NO evidence that the species barrier has been crossed. Until such evidence is found, evolution is mere THEORY regarding the origin of life and the differentiation of species. If you insist, just like the religious fanatics, to the contrary, then please provide some data and references rather than a groundless regurgitated s proclamation of what is not true. That's what Dubya does. This is science, not politics. Get it straight or go back and study up on the subject before posting more uneducated nonsense.

If you want to set forth an article of faith, fine, do that. Label it accurately. Don' t try to foist your leap-of-faith cosmology on tyhe unsuspecting as though it is scientific fact. It is not fact. It is no less religion than Christianity and Islam.

[edit on 1/15/2005 by dubiousone]

[edit on 1/15/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone


Religion is anti-progressive and anti-education. Religion has always denounced advancement and discovery. Fanatic? Pulease! * * * * To the religious fanatic, it's more important that everything fit into the context of the bible, than to seek actual facts.


As to the first sentence, that's pure hogwash. It may be true more often than not. However, it is not universally true. You discredit yourself by posing such a broad generalization.

Oh really? Why don't you point out to us what has progressed in religion. Why don't you point out any new religious education that's not just one more method of studying the same 2000 year old book. Is there anything? What's new? What has changed?

[edit on 15-1-2005 by Damned]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   


Oh really? Why don't you point out to us what has progressed in religion.


I know and have known many highly educated and progressive people who are also "religious". These are not mutually exclusive characteristics. Education does not come solely from others, from the state, or from institutions whether religious or secular.

You seem to be saying that if a person is religious then they cannot be educated or progressive. That's nonsense unless you hold a very limited definition of "progressive" and "educated", or do you rather mean "dogmatic" when you use these terms? Dogma is not limited to those who are religious. You are grossly oversimplifying.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   
.
CazMedia,

You have entirely missed the point.

Religious bias is trying to invade the science classroom. PERIOD.

No one has suggested putting a sticker on every bible saying "The bible is not based on science."

Keep religion in Church and religious studies and Science in science classes.

If your god is so all-powerful, what are you so afraid of?
Could it be you are afraid of the TRUTH?
.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
No one has suggested putting a sticker on every bible saying "The bible is not based on science.".


slank,

You have given me an idea. I think it would be a hoot to print up some of those stickers and whenever you are in a hotel that the Gideons have graced, we can add our unique take on events


Edit: Do you think they will view it in the same light as no threat?


[edit on 1/15/05 by FredT]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
You seem to be saying that if a person is religious then they cannot be educated or progressive. That's nonsense unless you hold a very limited definition of "progressive" and "educated", or do you rather mean "dogmatic" when you use these terms? Dogma is not limited to those who are religious. You are grossly oversimplifying.

That's not what I said. I said Religion is anti-progressive and anti-education. I didn't say religious people are incapable of learning. Throughout history, religious groups have always resisted progress and any education that they feel threatens their bible story. Not only did they resist some of the largest discoveries ever, they killed people who insisted they were wrong.
Luckily, they can't legally kill people anymore, but their mindset is still the same.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
.
FredT,

If you do it in churches everyone will be up in arms,
"Oh my Gosh! The state is imposing its ideas on our church!"
They will all come screaming for a separation of church and state. Guaranteed.

I don't really genuinely suggest it, because science is stronger and more real than religion. Truth is truth whether or not there are any people to or who recognize it.

Honestly my attitude is science is for adults, religion is for children.

If our species is collectively unable to recognize truth, then time will perhaps find/create a different species that will be smart enough and it and not us very likely will endure for a very long time.
.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
If the textbook in question presents evolution as a fact and the only reasonable explanation of our origins then the stickers are needed as a clarification. Many posters here have assumed that the sticker is some kind of religious assault on science. That is a huge assumption not born out by the facts in the case. Even if all those who favored the stickers held strong religious beliefs their decision need not be a religious one if the text books in question present an unsubstantiated theory as a fact.

Errors in School text books need to be corrected. If a textbook presents the Theory of Evolution as a proven fact, as the text books I grew up with did, then that book needs the sticker in order to correct an error in its terminology. To fail to correct that error would be an attack on the science that is being taught far more damaging than some sticker that invites students to examine the evidence and draw their own conclusions.

The school board, in this case, is correct, religion or not. There is no oppression involved in the language of the stickers, instead only an invitation to have an open mind. Where is the dogmatism it that? It seems there are quite a number of people on a witch hunt for religious interferance in science. True to history those on the witch hunt are finding witches at every turn, even though there are none.

On a related note let me state that anyone who elevates science to the exclusion of religion turns a blind eye on his or her own immortality, disregarding his own soul. To me this is the utmost form of foolishness for what gain is it to understand the fleeting years of ones existance on Earth in their entirety if in doing so you ignore your existance in eternity.

I do not say that science should be bound to religion nor religion to science. However, when one is elevated to the exclusion of the other humanity suffers and ignorance propagates.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by Johannmon]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
If the textbook in question presents evolution as a fact and the only reasonable explanation of our origins then the stickers are needed as a clarification. Many posters here have assumed that the sticker is some kind of religious assault on science.


Sorry, but this was a religious assult on science period


The disclaimers stem from a petition drive begun in 2002 by Marjorie Rogers, who says she is a creationist. Rogers collected 2,300 signatures of supporters, prompting the board to stick evolution disclaimers on the inside front covers of science books used in middle and high schools.

The Cobb school district as recently as 10 years ago cut out from science textbooks pages that involved evolution, according to court testimony.

georgiascience.org...


Cobb country seems to be int he controll of religous zealots no matter how much you guys want to deny it.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
.
Johannmon,

present an unsubstantiated theory as a fact
The reason we study genetics is because evolutionary inheritance theory led us to it. Evolution is deeply substantiated, in genetics, in fossils, in geology, in commonality between genomes.

You attempt to trivialize evolutionary theory, you actually trivialize yourself.

These stickers are promoted by religious people for religious reasons ONLY.

If some other genuinely scientifically valid theory is presented science will accept it.

Science, the collection of data and abstraction of explanatory theories for the data. [Note: data first, explanation second]

Creationism, mystic belief masquerading as science.
.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   


If the textbook in question presents evolution as a fact and the only reasonable explanation of our origins then the stickers are needed as a clarification.


Could you tell me what other reasonable explanations there are for life on this planet, in your opinion.



Many posters here have assumed that the sticker is some kind of religious assault on science


what else is it? The children are there to be educated in fact. Why tell them innacurate, false information? what is the point of education?




The school board, in this case, is correct, religion or not. There is no oppression involved in the language of the stickers, instead only an invitation to have an open mind.


We are all aware of the school boards intentions.

I have a theory that the schoolboard is trying to inject creationism into science text books based on fact!!





It seems there are quite a number of people on a witch hunt for religious interferance in science. True to history those on the witch hunt are finding witches at every turn, even though there are none.


The majority of people who oppose the stickers on this board are open minded, educated individuals who tolerate 'witches' or those with a different perspective to themselves, unlike certain religions who persecuted and murdered 'different individuals, who questioned the churches 'teachings', throughout history.




I do not say that science should be bound to religion nor religion to science. However, when one is elevated to the exclusion of the other humanity suffers and ignorance propagates.


I think you have rose tinted glasses on, the idea of religion is great, but lets live in a world of reality. Over the span of the human race, religion has been responsible, IMHO, for wars, genocide, poverty, starvation, suffering etc. etc. More deaths in the name of religion, false beliefs, ignorance and bigotry, than anything else. What is the source of all the current problems in the world?

How can humanity suffer any more?

The only good thing, IMHO, to come out of religion, is moral values.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Wooly Mammoths are related to elephants, just as Neanderthals are related to Humans. It's beyond obvious. How anyone can deny it, I'll never understand. Sometimes, things really are as simple as they appear. Whether Humans are decendants of apes, I have no idea, but evolution, as a process, is blatant. Even if all Neanderthals died before humans evolved, it's still evolution. It's the next generation of improved beings, who just happen to be so much like the previous one, that it's impossible to deny the similarity. Even if there's no gene mutation at all, it's still evolution.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Damned]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   
dammed,

You can take a horse (or his evolutionary predesesor) to the water but you cannot make them drink from the cup of knowledge. There people albiet alot less extreme would be the ones crusifing us and burning us at the stake for such harasey.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Sorry, but this was a religious assult on science period


That is just plain sensationalism. The sticker placed on the books made no assault on science. It stated a fact and invited students to explore science. Where is your religious ASSAULT? Just because the person proposing this was religious does not make them wrong! Nor does it make their actions an assault. What was placed in the books was a statement of pure fact. Evolution is a theory If you want to call the invitation for students to examine science with an open mind an attack on science you are showing your own intolerance.


If some other genuinely scientifically valid theory is presented science will accept it.


Here is a scientific theory for you. Facts first. Life on this planet displays a complexity that surpasses anything that man has even begun to comprehend much less build. The possibility that this complexity came about by random chance is so statistically small that it is considered impossible. The diversity of life on this planet has no known mechanism by which one species can become another species.(Macro-Evolution) Therefore due to the complexity and balance found in the life systems of this planet and the improbability of these things happening by chance I postulate that life was created on this planet in many different forms. Those forms have evolved within their species to create subspecies as has been observed in genetic breeding experiments thus adding to the diversity of life we observe.

There you have it, a scientific theory that begins with observed facts and comes to a logical conclusion. This very theory is being studied for substantiation. It is called the intelligent design theory. If you want to say that this is not science because it recognizes the potential for intelligence in the data we observe then you must also say that much of archeology is not a science but should instead be studied as purely geology since archeology seeks to discover and understand ancient cultures by finding things in the geological strata that indicate a civilization ie intelligence.


Creationism, mystic belief masquerading as science.
There is nothing mystic about recognizing that a design or pattern is not of natural origin.


Why tell them inaccurate, false information? what is the point of education?


I challenge you to show me the inaccurate, false information in this statement.


This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.


The FACT of the matter is there is nothing wrong with the statement. Even if this was proposed by a person who believed we all came from mushrooms and grew out of God's crap pile, the statement itself is well worded, neutral, and a proper expression of the truth. There is no harm in stating the truth and if the people of that county felt it was necessary to do so they have every right to do it. In fact I will put to you that this judge who has claimed the above statement unconstitutional is himself in violation of the constitution by denying the school board of that district their right to freedom of expression. IF they felt it was necessary to emphasize a true statement, they have every right to do so as elected officials of their district even to the point of posting stickers.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:58 AM
link   
You have voted Johannmon for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Slank Slinks around the real issue,


Could it be you are afraid of the TRUTH?
When it comes to mising the point, you win by a landslide, tho FredT comes in a close seccond.

Please, i DARE you Slank, Damned and FredT, for the record to say if the following statement is true or false. NO explanations, just a t or f will do.



"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."


When you talk about the truth Slank, why is this any less of a true statement becouse of who says it? Its not.
Aviodance of this basic thing by going off on tangents about thories and other stuff is AVOIDANCE OF THE TRUTH!

Explain the court case to me, not science v religion or the principals defining a thoery...
according to Judge Cooper who says,


the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories
Yet he SOMEHOW comes to the conclusion that the sticker,


conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders
PLEASE EXPLAIN how ANYONE could leap to this conclusion, by ONLY reading the sticker, without prior knowlege of the issues that are behind the scenes....how in the hell can anyone make this kind of assumption based upon the text in question?

DO NOT bring up intent of the sticker, or who is trying to have them...
ONLY LOOK at the text and explain how some kid, who is already unaware of the science he's about to learn about, is going to somehow magically be aware of the "intent" of the sticker from reading it, or where it came from!!
This is the most STUPID allegation anyone could make.
Gee mabey i should assume from reading evolutionary theory, that i should have sex with a monkey, after all, we evolved from them right? Were 99% the same genetically, so that must mean minkey sex is 99% correct too.

I can dream up many implications about the hidden meaning of the text in question, but NONE of them change what is actually being stated.
You cant change what is actually being stated because you do not approve of the people sending this true statement, nor knowing the reasons why they wish to say it.
The statement says what it says despite your crusifiction of the messenger.
This is basic English language 101, and you all would fail 3rd grade reading by telling your teacher any sentance of truth means something that it doenst say.

The issue of state/religion is entirely seperate in this ruling....at least it should be. For the judge to have made a dumb leap of "logic" to try and make the sticker say something it really doesnt, and he acknowleges does not say, is beyond belief!!! He just made up the meaning of the sentance, based upon his own preconcieved notions about the behind the scenes issue and "insider" knowlege of things that an average person reading this statement alone, without this info, would have a really hard time comming to the same conclusion.

Let me be sure i understand you people about the issue of making a true statement....
Lets conduct an experiment using the scientific method...

a christian puts a sticker on a pot that says, "dont touch this pot of boiling water, it is hot and you will get burned." This is a true statement, yet you think that you can touch it and not get burned becaues the person telling this to you is someone you do not aprove of? Does it REALLY matter what the christians motivations for making a true statement are when you touch it and burn yourself? Now replace christian with nazi, murderer, pedophile, negro, woman, child, mother, spouse etc etc...
using the scientific method to test the christians theory about the pot and the warning sticker using repeted attempts with both positive and negative "messengers" we get the same conclusion...
the sticker said the truth.....
Other inferances about what it says are false...(it is not cold, you will not get pregnant from touching it, Bush is not gay...etc etc)
The truth stays the truth reguardless of the messenger used to transmit the message.

Slank says,


Truth is truth whether or not there are any people to or who recognize it.
So how is this sticker not true and why dont you recognize it?


Slank continues reading more into the sticker than it says here,


These stickers are promoted by religious people for religious reasons ONLY.
Again, how did you miraculously come to this conclusion based upon the actual text in question, because that is what this case is about, not state v religion.

FredT says,


this was a religious assult on science period
How do you come to this conclusion by reading the stickers text?
Dont drudge up other issues, stick to this courts ruling that the sticker implies something that it doesnt state, as the judge says.

Spacemunkey emphasis my point about this discussion here,


Could you tell me what other reasonable explanations there are for life on this planet, in your opinion.
While the sticker offers NO other options for an explanation, it does open the door to "there are other options"...Why is censoring this information of "other options" soo wrong?

Spacemunkey says,


We are all aware of the school boards intentions.
ARE WE? You can tell this from reading the stickers text how?
Again, you are supplying additional information that the sticker does not contain. You ASSUME that every reader of the sticker will have this same knowlege....COURTS ARENT HERE TO ASSUME!!

Spacemonkey returns from a deep space mission here,


The majority of people who oppose the stickers on this board are open minded, educated individuals who tolerate 'witches' or those with a different perspective to themselves,
IF this was a true statement, then why does their tolorance end by inclusion of a true statement which opens up ideas to other non stated posibillities??? Not so open minded and inclusive after all eh?

Based upon some of the statements ive read on this thread, i can ASSUME alot about the mental capasity of the person posting the statement, but if i said what those inferances were or why i think they were made, (true or not)
Id surley get a warn....


ALL FOR CENSORING OPEN MINDED STATEMENTS OF TRUTH, WHILE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE MESSENGER
please step forward and make yourself known.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Cazmedia..

Again why do you wish to ridicule replies to your posts?



Based upon some of the statements ive read on this thread, i can ASSUME alot about the mental capasity of the person posting the statement, but if i said what those inferances were or why i think they were made, (true or not)


I dont understand it? Can you not argue your case without ridicule?




Spacemonkey returns from a deep space mission here,



...Spacemunkey
The majority of people who oppose the stickers on this board are open minded, educated individuals who tolerate 'witches' or those with a different perspective to themselves,




...cazmedia
IF this was a true statement, then why does their tolorance end by inclusion of a true statement which opens up ideas to other non stated posibillities??? Not so open minded and inclusive after all eh?




....the Judge
"By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories," U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said.


These are the judges' comments in summing up his ruling. But if there was no intent as you say, why were the stickers placed in the science text book after 2,000 complaints from parents complaining that ;



the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life, such as the biblical story of creation.


again I ask you, What scientific basis do you have or proof, no matter how small, that Creationism should be considered along with the theory of evolution? the fact is that there is no basis for creationism, therefore if creationism cannot be backed up by any verifiable means, why should it be taught in a science class?

Science the definition....



....knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena




....The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

.....Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

....Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study

....Methodological activity, discipline, or study



Can creationism be said to fall into any of the above?



While the sticker offers NO other options for an explanation, it does open the door to "there are other options"...Why is censoring this information of "other options" soo wrong?


Why is this censoring?? Its sorting the Wheat from the Chaff, should we include ridiculous idea's on the origins of man? and thus pull students away from productive learning of proper, quantifiable science?




How do you come to this conclusion by reading the stickers text?
Dont drudge up other issues, stick to this courts ruling that the sticker implies something that it doesnt state, as the judge says.


There is no getting away from the fact that the judge has made a decision on ALL AVAILABLE FACTS AND EVIDENCE. you cannot make a judgement by just looking at the sticker, you have to look at all the evidence.

It seems to me that you only see in BLACK OR WHITE.

[edit on 17-1-2005 by spacemunkey]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Please, i DARE you Slank, Damned and FredT, for the record to say if the following statement is true or false. NO explanations, just a t or f will do.



"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

It is false. Evolution is indeed a fact, and it's obvious to anyone who isn't blind and/or dumb. I've already explained why it is a fact.
These religious people don't really have a problem with evolution. They have a problem with creationism not being taught in public schools. That's their big beef. They worked hard brainwashing their children, and they don't want any science teacher giving their kids the chance to think about an alternate (and much more logical) possibility.
The only place creationism could be taught in public schools is in a mythology class.
Let me ask you this. Have you ever seen any science book that mentions the bible? What if math books had a sticker that said math is only a theory? Wouldn't it tend to give you the impression that it's not important to study? I'd actually like to see exactly what in their text book these parents had such a problem with. If it's not the entire subject in general, it probably comes down to one sentence. I wonder if the book even states that evolution is a fact? I doubt it.

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Damned]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join