Page 1 of 57 123451151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 846
  1. #1
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    789

    Maybe all you evolution advocates can help me with this one.

    Just recently, the school board in my county voted AGAINST teaching kids the flaws of evolution along with its strengths (every several years they vote on curriculum changes based on the changes they see in the world around them and things like that).

    So what's up with that? It's not like they were even voting on whether children should be taught both creationism and evolutionism side by side (which personally i think is what should be done at the very least).

    I'm just not sure I understand. Are they exercising their constitutional right to have their children live in ignorance?

    Seriously, it doesn't make sense to me. These same people claim to be knowledgeable, fact oriented people, but they would rather have their children live in ignorance than hear the pros and cons and make an informed decision for themselves.

    ....And for those of you who don't know, evolution does have many flaws that nobody (evolutionists or creationists) disputes. That is why it is still called a theory. If you haven't heard them, then chances are it is because you were not taught them in school either.

    Wardog

  2. #2
    Joined
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,000
    Religion is nothing more than a way for a select few to control the masses. That is why for hundreds of years the only people allowed to read were clergy.

  3. #3
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Age
    32
    Posts
    6,438
    Did they ban Creationism too? If not thats as retarded as hell.

  4. #4
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Juan Valdez's vacation hotspot
    Posts
    2,459
    Gotta love the public school system...Thomas Jefferson would be really proud.
    AMD RIGS:
    Main Rig: Antec P160\A7N8X-Dlx\1007 Uber\Thermalright SP-97-Ceramique\XP-M 2500@12X210\NB Vantec Iceberg\2X Corsair XMS 256 PC3200LL\WD Raptor X2 (RAID 0)\WD 800JB\ATI 9800 Pro\NEC 2500A\Vantec 520W PS

    Shuttle Rig: SN45G\Stock Ice-Ceramique\XP 2500@10.5X202\Mushkin Black Lvl I PC3200\ATI AIW 9600 Pro\WD 1200JB\Lite-On LTC48161H


    Current evaluation testing: Plextor PX-712SA (SATA Optical Drive).

    My Pets...... 3112 Driver Comparison....NCQ Desktop Performance

  5. #5
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    2,225
    I'm just guessing, but I would bet that what they are talking about is the myriad number of psuedo-scientific reports done by Christian "scientists" that claim to disprove evolution.

    If that's not the case then it is wrong; no theory is perfect and all sides should be presented.
    -soplcod

  6. #6
    Joined
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    14,223
    hahaha. morons. it's decisions like that that deprive students of the opportunity to practise reasoning and philosophical argument. Maybe they don't understand that. Very small minded and, yes, controlling.

  7. #7
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    just around the bend
    Posts
    482
    This looks like a question for the lightening round, but anyway....

    -originally posted by wardog25-Just recently, the school board in my county voted AGAINST teaching kids the flaws of evolution along with its strengths
    The theory of evolution itself is not flawed (so far). Science is self-correcting and a good theory generates testable hypotheses that are used to prove, disprove or modify the theory. In the realm of science the theory of evolution is not under debate; rather, what is being argued are the processes by which evolution occurs. Is it gradual or punctuated etc., and as evidence is gathered for one or the other the theory will be modified accordingly.

    I'm not sure what exactly your school board voted for, but they should not disallow healthy debate regarding the processes by which evolution occurs. There should always be discussion. That is the beauty of science. It is self-correcting and relies on empirical evidence.

    Religion, on the other hand, does not generate testable hypotheses. I can share another individual's faith, but I can never experience it as they do. I cannot produce empirical evidence proving that my faith is correct and another's is not.
    Last edited by nxtrastout; 09-12-2003 at 01:14 PM.
    The only difference between a madman and myself is...I am not mad.
    --Salvador Dali

  8. #8
    Joined
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    35
    Wardog,

    Please explain the flaws of evolutionary theory to us, the uneducated.

  9. #9
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Reality: Playground for the unimaginative.
    Age
    44
    Posts
    3,896
    Any idea what "flaws" they think they've found that are teachable?

    I got great attacks for the "intelligent design" fans.

  10. #10
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    789
    I cannot comment on what exactly was said by them in their meetings, because I am not on the school board myself; instead, i heard the story from a friend of mine who is on the school board.

    If you would like (though it may cause much and flames), I could sum up what my friend and others are concerned with.

    Here goes...
    Evolution is taught in most science books as the reason for the origin of life. However, most high school (and below) science curriculum is rather simplified, so in order to prove this theory, they often cite several quite well known examples. i.e. the horses toes, the light colored and peppered moths, Galapagos finches, etc, etc.

    What is left out is that these examples don't prove the theory of evolution at all, but only microevoltion (evolution within species). Therefore, students leave the classroom thinking they've learned about the origin of life, when all they've learned about is natural selection and survival of the fittest.

    The flaws that need to be taught are that while microevolution is evident everywhere and is pretty much not disputed by anyone, the evolution of one species into another (macroevolution) has yet to be documented anywhere, nor is it supported by the fossil record.

    This leaves the debate for the origin of life wide open. So why can science books not say that although evolution clearly applies within species, applying it to the origin of life is not supported by much evidence?


    There's one example of a flaw, but so people don't think I'm short on them, I'll throw in another real quick.

    Most high school science books say that the earth is billions and billions of years old (a very old earth is considered to be evidence for the theory of evolution). They then list the dating of rocks to prove this theory. Yet never once do they mention that many other factors suggest a younger earth. Some of these include salinity of the oceans, continental erosion, helium in the atmosphere, and decay of the earth's magnetic field. Studies of these phenomena suggest that if the earth were billions of years old, they would not be close to the levels they are at now. But these things are not mentioned.

    Anyway, all that to say that what is taught in science books as hard fact....is not, but is only theory.

    It seems to me that if the case for the theory of evolution as the origin of life were as strong as these parents act as it is, they would not be bothered if their children learnt the pros and cons. But it seems they are afraid their children will decide that the theory of evolution doesn't hold water.

  11. #11
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Reality: Playground for the unimaginative.
    Age
    44
    Posts
    3,896
    Well, when you get into DNA, there is a significant amount of proof as to the fact that more recent species have, for the most part, the same DNA as it's predecesors, barring a few changes. We're about 97% chimpanzee, with 3% new DNA mixtures. (and of that probably 80% is garbage, as far as we can tell right now)

    So ya, the proof is there, but it's not really high school level stuff.

    Sorta like the way they teach you about atoms in public school physics, where every electron is a discreet point in space. Try keeping ahold of that little illusion through university, or even later in high school.

  12. #12
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,294
    "Theory" of Evolution? As my Anthropology professor once mentioned to our class, just go down to K-MART on a busy Saturday morning and you will see proof of evolution with living specimens covering the entire range of human development.

  13. #13
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    just around the bend
    Posts
    482
    Actually microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanations used by biologists to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. I'm talking about natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection to name a few. Macroevolution or common descent is well-supported scientifically. Take for example Cnemidopherons uniparens--a species of whip-tailed lizards. These lizards reproduce parthenogenetically (asexually) there are no males in this species. By looking at molecular genetics, scientists can tell that these lizards evolved directly from a species of the genus that had and still do reproduce sexually.

    Vestigal organs provide another good argument for common descent: hind limbs in whales; wisdom teeth in humans (gill arches and a tail in humans as seen in prenatal development), pelvic formations in snakes. Just how do you explain walking fish or lung fish for that matter?

    Decay of the earth's magnetic field? The earth's dipole has fluctuated over the last 8,000 years. There has not been a constant rate of decay in the strength of the magentic field so it is impossible to use this as argument to determine the age of the earth.

    Salinity of the oceans? Salt is being added to the oceans by the world's rivers about as fast as it is being removed. Tough to determine age using this.

    Helium in the atmosphere? This would assume a constant rate of removal of helium from the atmosphere, but we are not a closed system, as indicated above.

    These arguments against an "old earth" have all been examined in the scientific literature and found wanting.
    The only difference between a madman and myself is...I am not mad.
    --Salvador Dali

  14. #14
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397
    Originally posted by nxtrastout
    Salinity of the oceans? Salt is being added to the oceans by the world's rivers about as fast as it is being removed. Tough to determine age using this.
    How exactly is salt being removed anywhere near as fast as it is being deposited. Ever heard of the Salton Sea, Great Salt Lake, or the Dead Sea?

  15. #15
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    just around the bend
    Posts
    482
    -originally posted by bk94si-
    How exactly is salt being removed anywhere near as fast as it is being deposited.
    Simply stated, I admit, but there is a balance. Salt is removed in several ways: formation of evaporites; which are salt deposits left on land when sea water evaporates;areosols--meaning sea spray; precipitation--causes salt ions to form insoluble products that settle to the oceans floor and are eventually buried in sediment; it is also incorporated into shells and reefs via biological processes; and uplift processes--seawater circulates through magma chambers in the earth's crust and leaves behind deposits of minerals eg. salt.

    -originally posted by bk94si- Ever heard of the Salton Sea, Great Salt Lake, or the Dead Sea?
    Not sure what you're getting at here...

    ...but these landlocked bodies of water are isolated systems. They don't have outlets therefore salt concentrations build because of evaporation, but will also be diluted through rain, snow run-off etc.
    Last edited by nxtrastout; 09-12-2003 at 07:02 PM.
    The only difference between a madman and myself is...I am not mad.
    --Salvador Dali

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •