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.

 

Battle Against Teaching Evolution in Texas Begins: Should creationism win out, textbooks throughout

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


This information has been presented on the Christian/Atheists forums time and again. But none is so deaf is he who will not hear. Or refuses to hear.
But God bless you for trying.




posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   




Wow, great post, starred.

Great shame that ALL people with deeply held religious beliefs cant be as open minded


the world would be a much safer place



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


Okay Riley if you insist.
Then don't be teaching your monkey junk to my kids.
Fair enough? I have an idea...Just ban schools and that will solve everything. LOL!

[edit on 8-4-2008 by sizzle]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


Would this be the ToE that you are always referring to?:


A theory of everything (TOE) is a hypothetical theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena. Initially, the term was used with an ironic connotation to refer to various overgeneralized theories. For example, a great-grandfather of Ijon Tichy — a character from a cycle of Stanisław Lem's science fiction stories of 1960s — was known to work on the "General Theory of Everything". Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of quantum physics to describe a theory that would unify or explain through a single model the theories of all fundamental interactions of nature.

There have been many theories of everything proposed by theoretical physicists over the last century, but none have been confirmed experimentally. The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity are hard to combine.

Based on theoretical holographic principle arguments from the 1990s, many physicists believe that 11-dimensional M-theory, which is described in many sectors by matrix string theory, in many other sectors by perturbative string theory is the complete theory of everything. Other physicists disagree.

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't allude to this theory, so why should I care what it says. All-in-all it's just another theory.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Theory of Evolution.
Did you genuinely not know what I meant..? the op is about evolution.

Theory of everything is more about finding a specific quantum theory behind existence itself. The most popular one is string theory but I don't think it has enough evidence to qualify as a scientific theory as of yet.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by riley]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by sizzle
reply to post by riley
 



Then don't be teaching your monkey junk to my kids.


[edit on 8-4-2008 by sizzle]


Removed possibly incendiary comment.

[edit on 8/4/08 by Smokersroom]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


I detract that theory and apologize.
I need some z's.
Going to bed now.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by sizzle]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Smokersroom
 


Please speak only
for your own children.
Not mine. Granted he can be cute as a monkey, but never saw him swinging by his tail yet.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by sizzle
 


Wow. It is serious misunderstandings of the theory of evolution, such as that displayed in your comment above, that help to give evolution a bad name. It's no wonder that people find it objectionable, if people like you think that evolution turns monkeys into people! If you would take the time to learn what evolution actually is and how it works, you would see that many of your fears are unfounded.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by sizzle
reply to post by riley
 


Btw Riley,
Since you are a great supporter of theories, I have another one for you. This one is called 'A Theory According to Sizzle.' It goes something like this:

I, Sizzle have ascertained that there is no such thing as a true Atheist. I had help with this study from Atheists. An ATS member on another thread posted information he had found, that stated that 92% of the world held some type of religious beliefs, while only 8% professed Atheism. (We'll get back to this in a moment).

My reasons for these findings are as follows:
(A). I don't believe that anyone could devote so much of their time and energy to an entity or being that they professed non-belief in.
(B).I have found that many Atheists were once believers, but were turned away from their faith due to:

1. being forced to attend a religious academic school, where they endured harsh treatment.
2. being born into a family that attended services out of reasons other than spirituality. (status in community, a relative was a pastor, forced situations etc.) In other words, it is my contention that they do not disbelieve in God; They are angry at Him.

Okay, now back to the 92/08 ratio. If the evolution theory abounded by popular vote, just think what could happen with my theory.

what on earth is this? you haven't answered any of my points and haven't even stuck to the topic and have instead opted to turn this into [yet another] atheist bashing thread.

The subject is about people wanting schools to treach creation theory. I asked you why yours should be taught over other religions. It is a fair question which you have ignored..

Your little 'theory' is just projecting your own tainted views of atheists.. and you've even gone as far as to insinuate that atheists [me] deep down believe but are just "angry at him". Subtle.
PLEASE do not get personal and [indirectly] speculate on whether my atheism is genuine. I have my OWN reasons as to why I do not believe and it had nothing to do with being forced to go to church or harsh treatment [not saying I was treated harshly but I resent it being implied that my atheism stems from some sort of abuse].

I do not believe simply because I do not believe energy [god] can predate space.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by riley]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Meh, the only people I ever see trying to deny evolution, are those who simply cannot understand it. They always seem to have this idea that it all happened overnight.
And they all seem to ignore the mind bogglingly massive amounts of fossils and skeletal records that pain a very clear picture of evolution through time.
We didn't theorize the existence of those fossils... we found them.

Evolution ISN'T a theory, its a fact... it's the explanation of how it happened thats theory.
Just as Gravity isn't a theory, it's a fact. The theory is in HOW it works, not IF it works... we already know it works, and if you disagree, feel free to toss yourself off a cliff to test it.

All in all though... I'm wasting my breath. It's the United States... on top of that, it's TEXAS, did you really expect any better?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by sizzle
reply to post by riley
 


I detract that theory and apologize.
I need some z's.
Going to bed now.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by sizzle]

thankyou very much for apologising. please don't post in haste and try stick to the subject and so will I.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I think we were created by anuaki originally and then we had been eprimented on so we have different races sizes etc. Black people came from sirius and never been experimented on ; chinese Japanese are made race with genes of reptile like race; white race is mostly pleidians genes

vids.myspace.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I haven't read every post, but I'm going to jump in here anyway. Something needs to be said, and if it's already stated, then it needs to be emphasized.

Anyone who has read my replies to other threads on this subject should already know that I am adamant about certain versions of creationism being as 'scientific' as evolution. I am also adamant about them being given some measure of space as a rebuttal to evolution. The idea is not to discredit evolution as much as to allow thinking individual children to form their own opinions, based on all sides of the story.

That said, this is the opposite end of the spectrum and is simply as ridiculous. To throw out a textbook because it has 'hidden' gay messages? Or because it espouses global warming? Why are we even throwing ideas out at all? Is the classroom not to be where all ideas are included?

If someone is troubled by evolution, a simple statement to the effect of "there are other viewpoints on this issue, and here is the scientific data (if any) to back them up" should be sufficient. The same goes for Global Warming; I don't believe it, and I would be angered if my children were taught that CO2 was an imminent danger to the planet as though it were factual. Teach it as what it is, as what evolution is, as a theory with some corroborating evidence. That is proper. Allow the minds of tomorrow to determine what is real and what is not, with the benefit of all ideas, and without the baggage of indoctrinated ideas.

It's no wonder we rank so low in education. We spend so much time trying to force our children to believe things which are not proven, and not nearly enough time teaching them how to prove or disprove things themselves. And that goes for both sides.

I'll leave you with a short tale of a conversation I had with my daughter a few years ago. A friend of hers was warring with the local High School over the fact that evolution was taught as a fact and no mention of creationism (in any form) was taught. She has misgivings about evolution as I do, and asked me, "What do I do if I have to write a paper based on evolution? I don't believe it." I responded, "Begin your paper with the phrase 'According to evolution'. It is a theory, and you do need to learn the theory."

Perhaps she will someday embrace evolutionary theory. Perhaps I will (and you can speed things up in this thread). But we will both make that decision based on factual evidence and critical thinking. Not based on some idiot who decided to make sure a book binding was poor because the book mentioned evolution or creationism.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
In response to a few earlier posts...


1. We did not evolve from monkeys, we share a similar ancestor. It doesn't mean monkeys are some sort of genetic parent to us, it means we have a similar (very old) genetic base or foundation. If you put an alien into a room with a human and a monkey, could they not tell they were related? Four limbs, opposable thumbs, spine, rib cage, two eyes, a nose, etc. If you keep going further back on the ancestor scale you'll see a lot of species meet up. Look how similar vertebrates are.

2. Evolution is not merely a function of random coincidence. For those who believe that it is a shot in the dark I strongly suggest you learn more about the subject.

The problem with some religious people or creationists is that they refuse to look at the other side based on their faith. For instance, you can't study about the devil in an attempt to learn about your enemy. You just don't deal with it. If a subject is presented which is said to be against God, most Christians will avoid rather than attempt to understand. It's easier to dismiss evolution as the current fancy of atheist scientists than to read books on the subject. I believe they are afraid to doubt, I know I was at one point. But I feel the doubt I had in God made me a stronger believer. I can say that my personal beliefs are the result of my thoughts and feelings. I don't mean to be disrespectful or commanding ("go learn more kid") but I think if people learned more they'd see how beautiful and incredible the process is. It's only random in perspective, like watching a sport you aren't familiar with. Yet if you are, you'd know how much knowledge each player had and how they all worked together to produce the best result.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
We spend so much time trying to force our children to believe things which are not proven, and not nearly enough time teaching them how to prove or disprove things themselves.


That's an enormous part of it. Our system does not foster any sort of creative or personal understanding. My education is psychology and I am nothing short of amazed that no psychological teaching is done for children. If every person could take one semester of behavior modification and maybe sensory perception people's views would start to change. We never teach children they can control their emotions, thoughts, feelings, and .... beliefs. The system almost teaches you that you can't help your beliefs, that's just how you feel and there's nothing you can do about it. It totally eschews choice, logic, reason, and thought as if they were mystical or not for us to tinker with.

We'll teach our children almost anything except for how to learn.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Parabol
 


We'll teach our children almost anything except for how to learn.


I think we actually teach them how not to learn.

In college, there was a physics class that I had a lot of trouble with. The trouble wasn't that I didn't understand the concepts or wasn't able to follow the teachings of the professor. It was that the teachings of the professor did not always make good sense. I guess I am just a rebellious sort (see name
), but I needed proof to believe some of the concepts, and that proof was not available inside the campus boundaries. The other students mostly had no problem with the class, as they seemed to simply accept whatever the man said as fact.

On a good note, I did complete the class with a 4.0. I went to a library and read books until I had the proof I needed.

The course, I later found out from another instructor (who for some reason liked me
), was a 'weeder' course. While a subject was taught, it was taught in such a way as to prevent those who questioned professors from passing on to the more advanced courses. According to him, this was common practice. I wonder which courses you experienced that might have been similar? I have a daughter going into psychology, and it would be nice to be able to warn her.


TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I think psychology is the other way around. Question asking is highly encouraged, I was pretty shocked after switching over from the business school. They taught military style, no stupid questions and just listen to what I say. The weeding out factor for psych students was which level of understanding they achieved. Plenty of A students could memorize their way through undergrad but hit a wall at the masters level when they didn't have someone guiding their every thought. I don't really know how to frame it in words but there's a moment when you 'understand' how your mind works, as if your consciousness stepped outside of itself for a moment and took an unaltered look in the mirror. You could tell who was there by their level of maturity and self confidence. The way they discussed and the types of questions they asked would change as well. You have to really enjoy this type of thought and have an enormous curiosity. I'm always amused that my brain wants to learn everything about itself, can make for an odd individual



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


Evolution is totally theory and not fact. Evolution can no more be proven than creationism can. If evolution is going to be tought in public schools it should be tought as theory, not as fact. Creationism makes far more sense to me, but should be tought by parents and Sunday school workers. Both theories, both unproven.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol

Battle Against Teaching Evolution in Texas Begins: Should creationism win out, textbooks throughout the country–not just Texas–will challenge the theory of evolution in science curricula


www.dallasobserver.com

Already, the board is dominated by a far-right faction deeply concerned with promoting political and religious ideologies. In recent years, the board has rejected one textbook that taught about global warming—calling it "junk science" and "anti-capitalist"...

All of which is a prelude to the looming battle over the science curriculum, which is up for review in November. Seven of the 15 board members support the teaching of creationism or intelligent design.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 6-4-2008 by Parabol]


Evolution, junk science that it is. Is giving science a black eye! How can any thing the scientific establishment proclaim, be believed? When they are so politically controlled over the issue of Evolution. (Debated and debunked
thousands of times.) But it is all the secular system has to counter a Creator. Therefore it lives on, propped up with political backing!
When the scientific establishment and scientist in general can be (hired)
to support a political position; it destroys all their credibility.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join