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.

 

Scientific theories made into law

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I was torn on where to put this, but finally decided on politics and scandals. I want this discussion to focus on the legality aspect of this law, not the theory it's self. That's been discussed in countless threads before.

Now, for the meat. I've been doing an intensive search, and have discovered something interesting. There is only one scientific theory which is required curriculum in elementary and high schools. It is optional to teach about gravity. It is optional to teach about the laws of motion. It is optional to teach the laws of thermodynamics. Granted, if a teacher didn't, they may be fired, but there would be no legal ramifications for them. However, the theory of evolution being taught in our schools is LAW. Not only would the teacher get fired for not teaching it, but the state would be able to fine that teacher for not teaching it.

Of course, this isn't to say that it has to be taught in a grammar class, history class, or something to that effect, but it must be covered in general science classes, biology classes, and natural history classes.

The reason I see this as a scandal is that it makes children believe that a theory is, in fact, law(scientific law, not legal law). There by they will discredit any contradicting evidence for other theories. Gravity is up for grabs, a teacher doesn't have to say that gravity exists, but evolution, apparently, is more true then the existance of gravity. I dunno, I fell out of bed last night, but I didn't give birth to a grey...




posted on May, 26 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   
About the creation of man?



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I agree that the law should not put its support behind any particular theory over another, regardless of scientific proof. If later research shows evolution to be false, wouldn't the laws have to then be repealed? Its getting the law and therefore the government into an arena we would all benefit from them staying out of.

However I do understand why there is a law where in the other cases there are not. The law is there not to make sure that they teach evolution, but to make sure that they DON'T teach creationism. If teaching that the Sun revolved around the Earth became a common practice, I suspect there would be a law about that to.



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I don't know about now but when I went to school I was told about the Theory of Evolution not the Law of Evolution.



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Yes, there are many other theories, not just creationism, that are out there. Take a look at this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's a bit long, but I think there are 5 or 6 other origin theories put forward besides creationism and evolution.

Also, yes, you were taught about the thoery of Evolution...but were you taught the theories of abiogenesis and cosmology? I'm saying it is legal law to teach a theory. They call it a theory in science classes, but by only being taught that one theory, it indoctrinates our children with the idea that there is only one theory, much like the theory of lightwaves. If only one side is presented, you will lean towards that side as being fact.

Also visit www.talkorigins.org...


[Edited on 5-26-2004 by junglejake]



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Junglejake,

Could you tell me where you found out that evolution has to be taught in schools by law

Thank You in Advance!!!



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Sure, here are some links:

On google, search for "scientific theory legal law evolution" to get several results, but here are a couple specific links:

atheism.about.com...

www.nwcreation.net...

The laws seem to have chosen two theories, and they've been pushing and pulling in the courts. Personally, I think government should keep it's laws out of science, both the creationist and the evolution models. By the laws stating if you teach evolution, you must teach creation, and if you teach creation, you must teach evolution are seeming to make it clear that there are only two origin theories. What about all the others?

The ironic thing is that none of these theories can be proven via the scientific method. So, unless there is some major breakthrough where macro evolution can be proven in a labratory, all it can ever be is theory. Yet they have been made into law. Legal law.

Both sides are guilty of this, the evolutionists and the creationists. Either have the teachers teach every theory out there, or get rid of the laws.

EDIT: Also, I was reading through the first ammendment, and I think on page 966 it talks about this, too.

[Edited on 5-26-2004 by junglejake]



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   

It is optional to teach about gravity. It is optional to teach about the laws of motion. It is optional to teach the laws of thermodynamics


No it isn't. If you were to get a job as a science teacher then go around teaching the students that objects fall to the ground because gremlins are pulling on invisible strings, you would not be a science teacher for long.

The standards are a little tighter with regards to Evolution as that is one area where there is a concerted effort (from some groups) to stop it being taught, even worse, pushing to have creation taught in its place. Thus it is important to protect real science and make sure that solid scientific knowledge isn't denied to protect anyones religious beliefs.


it makes children believe that a theory is, in fact, law

As far as scientific theories go. It really is pretty much up there. Again I must point out the difference in the scientific use of the word 'theory' and the colloquial use of the word 'theory'. Colloquially, a theory is what science would call a hypothesis. Evolution is getting right up there with gravity, thermodynamics and Newtons fundamentals. There are quite simply no serious scientific contenders.



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Uh. JJ, all I see are a bunch of court cases. Do you have a link to a specific statute?



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   
As bad as I hate to say it, public schools should have a minimum set curriculum and the "theory" of evolution is important to biology which is one of the standard subjects. thats doesn't mean it should be called the law of evolution because it has plenty of holes in it so much so that Darwin himself abandoned it before his death. However, what we know, or think we know should be divulged to students who will eventually be the people who either prove or disprove the theory or at least better define it.

A clear separation of church and state cannot allow us to open the pandora's box of (any) religious theories of creation in the classroom because there are only about a million of them and only 6 hours or so in a school day. I belive in creationalism and can teach my son at home or at a private church. He does need to fully understand the theory of evolution to better understand why it isn't a scientific law. I would think that its the responsibility of the parent to know what their child is being taught and correct information with questionable sources. If your kid comes home and tells you that she heard that we evolved from primates, sit them down and asked them to reserve judgement until they are mature enough to understand the fallicies in such a statement and then watch for more signs their teacher is taking it upon themselves to sidestep the scientific process. Remember, it falls to the parent to educate as much or more than a stranger in our public school system.

So, I guess I have pissed off both sides now huh? Thats me, a loner.



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   
What gets me is that it's law to teach it... sure, there are ways around it... encourage science teachers to teach OTHER scientific theories on the subject, as well... correct your kids at home (which leads to a whole new set of problems... especially when they realize that the parent isn't always right... seen it at least a couple dozen times)... BUT, it's LAW... and that plays on a psychology aspect of it.

Most of the people I talk to about marijuana and they feel about the laws regarding it, tell me that they just don't use it because it's illegal. Sheep. Most of the reason people do or don't do alot of things is because it's law, not because it's the right or wrong thing. Most of the people I know are like this. They don't question anything, and when you challenge it, they jump to the side of the law (no matter how rediculous you've just proven it to be). Sheep.

I could write alot more on this, but I gotta get back to work... Hasta!



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Kano, I agree with you that if a teacher doesn't teach about gravity they'll lose their job, I stated that in my first post. But that's the school's decision, not the government's.

And again, they don't teach evolution as the law of evolution. The problem is that legal and scientific both use the word for two different meanings. They teach evolution as a theory, but at least in my schools, they never talked about the holes in the theory...But then, that's a discussion for another topic.

And currently I'm looking for a specific law from a .gov site, though half heartedly, as I'm at work right now. When I find one or several, I'll let y'all know.



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Earthscum
What gets me is that it's law to teach it... sure, there are ways around it... encourage science teachers to teach OTHER scientific theories on the subject, as well


Well there is the problem. There are no other SCIENTIFIC theories. Pseudoscience/religious theories abound, but there are NO OTHER theories based on science. Therefore, since it is within the scope of the states powers to mandate scientific curricula, they have no choice then to require the teaching of evolution. It is that simple really.

Besides, the biblical creationism is wrong anyway. Everyone knows that the Earth is really just an egg laid by the giant space Auk!



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   
What about Abiogenesis, Howard? It's a scientific theory, not religious.

members.aol.com...



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Kano,

You know that I have to disagree with you here on a few items that you referenced in your post.

1. To have evolution removed from curriculum and replaced by creationism is absurd. But to teach only evolution is also absurd because you are giving only one side of the coin. Evolution is scientifically flawed in many areas. Creationism is scientifically flawed in many areas (Especially since when they cant explain something they refer to Well the Bible Said). They are both flawed and all other theories of origin are too. The real problem is that one of these flawed theories is the only one you are taught in school.

2. Evolution is not pretty much up there. Evolution is only up there because it is the only way to explain away a creator. As for the examples you gave one in particular completely disagrees with evolution. Thermodynamics disagrees with evolution and abiogenesis and in order to get around this most evolutionists resort to creative circumstances that require extreme luck.


[Edited on 26-5-2004 by BlackJackal]



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Very solid hints if not direct proof of evolution lies in the fossil records. There is scientific merrit to the theory. There is absolutely zero science to the idea of creationism therefore it has no place in a science class. Cmon... I am supposed to put "and got created man because a voice in my head told me so" in a science book? Basically that is what it boils down to. It was the tendencies of man to place a religious significance on everything he did not understand. The bible was written during an era that was filled with gifted story tellers. And the mark of a good story teller is his/her ability to fudge on details if not completely make things up to make things more interesting. I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe we were created in our current form by a superior being. I just see that we are now beginning to understand how we evolved over the years. And there is evidence to support that theory.

Just my opinion.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Not to hijack the thread but...

They also taught us that before Chistopher Columbus got lost in the Atlantic ocean that EVERYONE thought the world was flat. That is complete bunk, everyone knew it was round, the Greeks knew it, the Egyptians were trading with South America, yadda yadda. But for some reason, even to this day (I asked my 12 year old niece) she was taught that Columbus proved the earth was round. Why?

As for evolution, they should just stop teaching all of it and admit that they don't know. There is no way we evolved from monkeys (why are there still monkeys?), and there is also very little chance that God spit in the dirt and made us.

If anything, they should teach that ancient aliens came down, genetically mixed themselves with homonids and bam, you got homosapien. I'll buy that before evolution. But then you open up the question where did the aliens come from and it goes on and on....

While on the subject don't they still teach that the civil war was over slavery? Seems you don't find out the truth until get into college.




top topics



 
0

log in

join