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.

 

Next Wave of Attack by Anti-Evolution Forces

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   
NOLA.com


MONROE, LA. (AP) — The new science policy for public schools in one north Louisiana parish is "an underhanded way to undercut the theory of evolution"
...
The policy adopted Wednesday night for Ouachita Parish was enthusiastically backed by officials with the Louisiana Family Forum, which gives its mission as "to persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research, communication and networking."
...
That is based on a false premise, Lynn said: "That is, that there's a scientific controversy about evolution. There isn't a scientific controversy. There's a religious one. There's no need to invite teachers — as I think this does — invite teachers to talk about creationism, talk about intelligent design as if they were alternatives to evolution, which they are not."


So, now that the religious folks can't get even ID (Intelligent Design or the more sophisticated version of Creationism) in schools, they're pushing to get Science teachers to discuss the controversy around evolution. Since they can't get what they want, which would be to have creationism taught right alongside evolution as an equally valid 'theory', they're trying to get their foot in the door another way.

They want to force school Science classes to discuss the "controversy" of evolution vs ID. They want the curriculum to contain the full range of "scientific views" that exist. (They consider ID to be a scientific view...)


My question is, if people want religion or religious concepts taught in school, are they as willing to have a science module taught in their Sunday Schools? Would evolution be discussed in church as an alternative to creation/ID? Could the benefits of Stem Cell research be examined in Bible School?

Would that be ok with the Creation/ID proponents? If not, why not?




posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
not this stuff again...

come on people, first ammendment, seperation of church and state
that, on its own, outlaws the teaching of religious principles in anything but a historical context to gain an understanding of a time

if i was ever taught this stuff at school i'd have a lot of fun messing with a teacher over it



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Would that be ok with the Creation/ID proponents? If not, why not?


I'd be willing to bet NOT. Because it will open up alternative ideas to members of the congregation and it does not appear that alternative ideas to the Bible are acceptable in certain quarters.

And I, as a NON-proponent of Creationism/ID am also opposed to teaching evolution in Church. For the same reason volleyball is not taught in English composition classes.

I must admit that I do not understand why this issue keeps coming up, other than as a consequence of people not knowing scientific method, or the basis of logical, critical thought.

Scientific Method has very well-defined rules, including testable hypotheses, independently reproduceable results and multiple independent evidence sources. The theory of evolution is strongly supported by application of these rules.

I have yet to see ANY evidence presented to support Creationism or Intelligent Design that fits the scientific method. One book used as a source is not even close.

Therefore, it is painfully clear that these speculations (they do not rise to the level of theories) do NOT belong in science classes. Philosophy, yes. Religion, sure. Sociology, perhaps (to study the effect of these beliefs on a culture). But hard science? Emphatically no.

If any evidence to support Creationism or ID is ever discovered, then sure, put them in science class, subject to the same rules. Until then, again, no.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
What exactly is wrong with Intelligent design theory? what is wrong with having it taught in schools?

Most science teachers I know, even in COLLEGE, will stop at a point and say, "ok, science does not have an explanation for this ______ (inset some phenomenon here) so it will be up to the theological realms to debate it."

like it or not religion does and always has had a place in our society, You dont have to be a bunch dicks and try your best to alienate it.

Besides, Evolution is just a theory and one that I feel has never had conclusive evidence to support it in the scientific world.

Macroevolution has never been proven or even had good evidence to support it. The only real evidence in evolution has been mutations on a microscopic level and the apparent similiarity between the species. Almost as if the same guy created them!


I have had biology instructors flat out say they do not believe in evolution because there are too many minute differences between humans and primates for us to have had evolved for them in the time frame proposed.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
What exactly is wrong with Intelligent design theory?


While ID may be described as a theory at the general level of the word 'theory', it is not a theory according to scientific method.

What testable hypotheses exist regarding ID?
If such hypotheses exist, what are the results of the tests?
Have such tests been conducted by multiple, independent researchers?
Has the methodology of such tests been reviewed by independent researchers, with no investment in the answer?




what is wrong with having it taught in schools?


In my opinion, not a thing. Just not in science classes, until and unless these speculations can be brought under the rules of scientific method.



Most science teachers I know, even in COLLEGE, will stop at a point and say, "ok, science does not have an explanation for this ______ (inset some phenomenon here) so it will be up to the theological realms to debate it."


Yes, any science teacher worthy of the name will acknowledge that scientific method does not hold all answers to all subjects. That does not invalidate the method, nor does it mean subjects that do not fit scientific method MUST be taught as science.



like it or not religion does and always has had a place in our society, You dont have to be a bunch dicks and try your best to alienate it.


Yes, religion does have a place in our society. Just not in our science classes.



Besides, Evolution is just a theory and one that I feel has never had conclusive evidence to support it in the scientific world.


Yes, evolution IS a theory. With substantial independently discovered evidence to back it up, testable hypothese, etc. Anyone who claims evolution is PROVEN fact is, in my opinion, incorrect.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Evolution is a theory. So is the Atomic Theory. Are you going to go over to Japan and tell the family members of the victims wiped out by the A-Bombs that their relatives weren't really killed by A-Bombs but by, uh, God?

Are you going to tell everyone who has fallen to their death that they didn't really die because Gravity is just a Theory?

No? Hypocrit.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Evolution, Atomic and Gravity theories all differ from the ID 'theory' in that they:

Have testable hypotheses.
These hypotheses have been tested and results made public.
The tests have been performed by multiple, independent researchers.
The methodology of the tests have been reviewed by multiple, independent researchers.

I ask again: Does Creationism/ID fit these criteria? I have yet to see any indication of this.

Where is the hypocracy?

edit for typo

[edit on 3-12-2006 by Open_Minded Skeptic]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
Evolution, Atomic and Gravity theories all differ from the ID 'theory' in that they:

Have testable hypotheses.
These hypotheses have been tested and results made public.
The tests have been performed by multiple, independent researchers.
The methodology of the tests have been reviewed by multiple, independent researchers.

I ask again: Does Creationism/ID fit these criteria? I have yet to see any indication of this.

Where is the hypocracy?

edit for typo

[edit on 3-12-2006 by Open_Minded Skeptic]


I didn't mean you. I meant XP, he says Evolution is "Just a Theory" Yet he won't tell people who are relatives of those killed by the Atomic Bombs we dropped on Japan that it didn't happen. He won't go to someone who's husband died when he jumped out a window of the WTC on 9/11 and fell to his death that it didn't really happen. So, if he accepts those theories, why not Evolution? Where does it say God made Gravity? or Atomic energy? It doesn't, yet he is more then ready to believe that yet refuses Science when it comes to Evolution.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
over 400,000 years is not a workable timeframe?

4000 generations - 4000 chances for change isnt enough?

Just because there hasn't been mind blowing evolutionary phases in the past 20 generations doesnt mean anything.

ehhhhhh maybe it just further proves my point that we are far from the first human civilization to have been here.



[edit on 3-12-2006 by Twelve]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
What exactly is wrong with Intelligent design theory? what is wrong with having it taught in schools?


I agree with OMS on this. There's nothing wrong with teaching ID in schools, as long as it's not taught as a science. There are lots of interesting ideas taught in schools.

Now that your question has been answered, does anyone care to answer mine that was posed in the first post?

If people want religion or religious concepts taught in school, are they as willing to have a science module taught in their Sunday Schools? Would evolution be discussed in church as an alternative to creation/ID? Could the benefits of Stem Cell research be examined in Bible School?

Would that be ok with the Creation/ID proponents? If not, why not?


Thanks.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
So, none of the people who are so adamant about teaching ID in schools are willing to even take on my question?

I can't believe how outspoken some are when imposing their religious beliefs in the schools, but when the shoe is on the other foot (when someone suggests imposing beliefs in their church), they seem to disappear into the woodwork.

Come out and deal with this double standard.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, none of the people who are so adamant about teaching ID in schools are willing to even take on my question?


Sadly, I do not find this particularly surprising. It is much easier to generate a lot of meaningless noise and distract attention than to hold a meaningful discussion. The people who want to teach ID as science have not only ignored (or, perhaps, evaded?) your question, but also:


Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
What testable hypotheses exist regarding ID?
If such hypotheses exist, what are the results of the tests?
Have such tests been conducted by multiple, independent researchers?
Has the methodology of such tests been reviewed by independent researchers, with no investment in the answer?


None of these questions seem terribly difficult on their face...



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan


I have had biology instructors flat out say they do not believe in evolution because there are too many minute differences between humans and primates for us to have had evolved for them in the time frame proposed.



Im guessing you meant from not for. We didn't evolve from monkeys, gorrilla, or any other primate left today. We share a common ancestor. This is something the anti-evolutionist leaves out in their debate against evolution. Just look at a monkey's hands and it should be obvious to a rational person what we have in common.

ID is not a good theory because a human has many physical flaws, if we were truly of an intelligent design I believe our bodies and minds would be capable of so much more.



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I believe in the creationist theory, but as someone with a science degree, I also know that it is not a scientific theory. I also don't believe that the evolutionary theory is correct, although I do think natural selection is correct, since we pretty much have proof of that in nature.

I can see mentioning that other theories exist besides evolution in a science class, and could see a teacher having a debate between the two or something, but it would be more appropriate to stick with scientific theories in a science class, and, as another poster said, leaving ID to religion or philosophy or that kind of thing.


What testable hypotheses exist regarding ID?

Nothing I am aware of at the moment. We'd need to talk to God or aliens or something to even begin to get something testable. Or maybe find an abandoned alien research lab on the Moon with protohumans in test tubes or something :p



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join