Evolution advocates blast science bills

From the article:

"Hardiman, the lead sponsor of the Senate version, said he was inspired by the recent documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." Ben Stein, a former Nixon speechwriter and actor, argued in the film that scientists are ostracized for promoting intelligent design over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which states that life forms grew and adapted from earlier living organisms.

Hardiman said he worries Michigan teachers are discouraged from talking about intelligent design or even answering students' questions about the topic."

Repeat after me -

ID is not science.

ID never was science.

ID never will be science.

Why the hell should it be taught in science calls?

As I have said before, I learned about both evolution and creationism as a teen. I was taught evolution in my public high school, and I learned about creation in Sunday school.

There are many venues for theistic teachings, public school science classes are not one of these venues, nor should be. There are private and parochial schools, church, camps, and Sunday school to teach theistic ideas. LEAVE SCIENCE ALONE.

Science is the only thing that belongs in school science class. I believe the teaching of creation science as I have come to understand it through a few churches where chicks i've gone out with have gone and their school books. It is nothing but Darwin bashin and it is offensive that such a great mind whose theories have been proven again and again gets potrayed as a moron by people that in line with lysenkoism and other pinko ideas

Lies for Jesus.
They will not stop in there atempt
to brainwash the children of this country. with this newest attack I call Creation 4.0

While I do not proscribe to creationism I do not find a discussion of alternate theories to be totally invalid. Maybe the creationism angle makes no sense but there are plenty of scientists that do not believe in the current views on global warming. Schools have a real tendency to ramrod their beliefs down student's throats. Probably even more so than most churches.

And, critical thinking can only be fostered by giving people options. If you are only taught one view you will be totally ill equipped to think critically.

So, if creationism makes no sense then let the students figure that out. They'll actually be much more informed if they are presented the "theory" and find it to be lacking. Having them figure out why they don't believe it would be the best teaching tool there is.

James C is Eugenist wrote:

Science is the only thing that belongs in school science class. I believe the teaching of creation science as I have come to understand it through a few churches where chicks i've gone out with have gone and their school books. It is nothing but Darwin bashin and it is offensive that such a great mind whose theories have been proven again and again gets potrayed as a moron by people that in line with lysenkoism and other pinko ideas

Yes darwin was intelligent but even darwin said himself that his theory was flawed. It has not been proven it is still a theory! If as you believe your ancestors were apes and your existance is due to evolution then apes would not exist today. Both opinions are still theories neither has been proven to be true and so the question still remains as to how things were created.

Corruption control wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes darwin was intelligent but even darwin said himself that his theory was flawed. It has not been proven it is still a theory! If as you believe your ancestors were apes and your existance is due to evolution then apes would not exist today. Both opinions are still theories neither has been proven to be true and so the question still remains as to how things were created.

Your argument is against a very simplified view of evolution. The correct assumption is that both we and apes come from a common ancestor. Thus we both could exist. Also, a portion of a population can evolve away from the mainline, as in the case of Galapagos Finches. The old finch line still existed but a new subspecies sprung up which could not mate with the old mainline species.

All of this is to say: You may not want to try to argue points which are 30,000 feet over your head. I'm all for trying to disprove something as an intellectual exercise. Maybe you can end up proving something by trying to disprove it. That fosters critical thinking. This is a good thing. But it's also entirely possible that you'll deeply embarrass yourself in public by making stupid, uninformed comments.

LET ME WHIP THIS OUT. Folks we came from beneath the CABBAGE LEAF. WHO REALLY CARES WHERE we came from. JUST TAKE A LOOK AT WHERE WE ARE HEADED.

Corruption control wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes darwin was intelligent but even darwin said himself that his theory was flawed. It has not been proven it is still a theory! If as you believe your ancestors were apes and your existance is due to evolution then apes would not exist today. Both opinions are still theories neither has been proven to be true and so the question still remains as to how things were created.

Your statement is flawed in the respect that you obviously don't understand that a scientific theory is very different from some guy in a bar that spews out a theory that 9-11 was an inside job.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Gravity is a theory too. Would you care to throw yourself off of a tall building because you don't believe in the validity of scientific theories?

Collin K wrote:

<quoted text>
Your argument is against a very simplified view of evolution. The correct assumption is that both we and apes come from a common ancestor. Thus we both could exist. Also, a portion of a population can evolve away from the mainline, as in the case of Galapagos Finches. The old finch line still existed but a new subspecies sprung up which could not mate with the old mainline species.
All of this is to say: You may not want to try to argue points which are 30,000 feet over your head. I'm all for trying to disprove something as an intellectual exercise. Maybe you can end up proving something by trying to disprove it. That fosters critical thinking. This is a good thing. But it's also entirely possible that you'll deeply embarrass yourself in public by making stupid, uninformed comments.

Yes you have just embarrased yourself by making stupid uninformed comments. Not to mention you were brainwashed in elementary school. when and if you get to take a higher education course you will find proof that darwins theories are flawed.

Saif wrote:

<quoted text>
Your statement is flawed in the respect that you obviously don't understand that a scientific theory is very different from some guy in a bar that spews out a theory that 9-11 was an inside job.
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.
Gravity is a theory too. Would you care to throw yourself off of a tall building because you don't believe in the validity of scientific theories?

your statement is flawed. next quit copying and pasting things you dont understand. Next go look up the definition of a theory. My statement came to the conclusion that both opinions on the subject are UNPROVED and therefore are just theroies. But hey its hard to get anyone who thinks thier ancestors were apes to beleive the truth.

Corruption control wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes you have just embarrased yourself by making stupid uninformed comments. Not to mention you were brainwashed in elementary school. when and if you get to take a higher education course you will find proof that darwins theories are flawed.

Yeah, OK. The higher you go in biology education the more convinced you tend to be about evolution. Also, I was brought up by strong Christian parents and I, myself, believed in creationism for about the first 22 years of my life. In fact, I'm sure my parents would be absolutely appalled to see that I no longer believe as they do. But, people change. I had a very hard heart for a long time and refused to look at any of the evidence. Eventually I did look and I did research and I did contemplate things. And you know what? I came to the conclusion that God could have just as easily used evolution as any other method. The evidence for evolution is extraordinary. To not believe in evolution of some sort is akin to not believing in oxygen or dirt.

One thing I should mention before I go... Darwin's theory was A STARTING POINT. We've come a long way since then. Don't use a 200 year old theory as your target when new things are discovered all of the time. Theories change as new facts are brought to life.

Corruption control wrote:

<quoted text>
your statement is flawed. next quit copying and pasting things you dont understand. Next go look up the definition of a theory. My statement came to the conclusion that both opinions on the subject are UNPROVED and therefore are just theroies. But hey its hard to get anyone who thinks thier ancestors were apes to beleive the truth.

I just did look up the definition of theory. The dictionary says:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

6 and 7 sound like the normal usage of theory.#1 is the definition that scientists usually mean when they say theory. BTW, Einstein's theory of relativity has been tested. All tests indicate that it is quite accurate. Plenty of evolutionary principles have been observed. Sure, no one has directly observed a change from a slug to a monkey but that's only because of timescale. Evolution is no more unproven than relativity. Which is to say, we know that both happen but maybe some of the fine details are a little sketchy.

Corruption control wrote:

<quoted text>
your statement is flawed. next quit copying and pasting things you dont understand. Next go look up the definition of a theory. My statement came to the conclusion that both opinions on the subject are UNPROVED and therefore are just theroies. But hey its hard to get anyone who thinks thier ancestors were apes to beleive the truth.

Your comments are not correct. Perhaps you need to double-check your definitions.

A Scientific Theory is an explanation of a process backed by a vast amount of evidence, and contradicted by none.

The process of Evolution is a well-proven theory, with a vast amount of fossil evidence, ecological studies showing the effect of natural selection, and biological discoveries concerning DNA, genes, etc...

There is no evidence backing up any alternative "claim", and therefore no competing Theory.

Apes and Humans are, of course, both primates, and descended from older primates. One "branch" developed into "Hominids", which became Humans. Another branch became "Apes". There are a considerable number of fossils that illustrate these changes.

Corruption control wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes darwin was intelligent but even darwin said himself that his theory was flawed..

This is incorrect. His theory was not complete, but the story of him retracting it (if that's what you are referring to) is NOT true.

FossilBob wrote:

<quoted text>
Your comments are not correct. Perhaps you need to double-check your definitions.
A Scientific Theory is an explanation of a process backed by a vast amount of evidence, and contradicted by none.
The process of Evolution is a well-proven theory, with a vast amount of fossil evidence, ecological studies showing the effect of natural selection, and biological discoveries concerning DNA, genes, etc...
There is no evidence backing up any alternative "claim", and therefore no competing Theory.
Apes and Humans are, of course, both primates, and descended from older primates. One "branch" developed into "Hominids", which became Humans. Another branch became "Apes". There are a considerable number of fossils that illustrate these changes.

I suggest you re-check your definitions. a theory is something not factual or proven to be true. a theory is something that needs to be tested and analyized with all factors included and if no contradictions can be found then it is possibly a fact. with millions upon millions of factors needed to be added to the equation the analysis will take more than several centuries to complete. A theory can be contradicted by the mere fact that is has not been proven factual and has not been analyized with all factors included.
My conclusion is correct both eveloution and Intelligent design are theories that have no absolute proof of being correct. Both can be contradicted in more than one way. I cant write it in any simplier terms for any of you to comprehend. I'm not siding with either theory until all factors have been added to the equation and thourghly analyized. which will not happen in my lifetime or yours.

FossilBob wrote:

<quoted text>
This is incorrect. His theory was not complete, but the story of him retracting it (if that's what you are referring to) is NOT true.

quit twisting my statements I never said he retracted his theory. I said "darwin himself thought his theory was flawed" for the very reason you stated. his theory was not complete and because it was not complete it was flawed by the fact that it was not complete.

Corruption control wrote:

<quoted text>
I suggest you re-check your definitions. a theory is something not factual or proven to be true. a theory is something that needs to be tested and analyized with all factors included and if no contradictions can be found then it is possibly a fact. with millions upon millions of factors needed to be added to the equation the analysis will take more than several centuries to complete. A theory can be contradicted by the mere fact that is has not been proven factual and has not been analyized with all factors included.
My conclusion is correct both eveloution and Intelligent design are theories that have no absolute proof of being correct. Both can be contradicted in more than one way. I cant write it in any simplier terms for any of you to comprehend. I'm not siding with either theory until all factors have been added to the equation and thourghly analyized. which will not happen in my lifetime or yours.

I can't make it any simpler for you. Perhaps you have worked in science for the last 3 decades?

A scientific theory is what I correctly defined. The process of evolution is certainly proved by the vast amount of evidence; the theory explains how the process itself works.

The details of the process are still not entirely understood; the fact of the process is established beyond any reasonable doubt.

No evidence that I know of supports "ID"... When asked for proof, "ID" advocates fail to produce.

The Dover trial would have been an excellent place for them to present some evidence...instead, they were forced to admit that "ID" was at the same level as "astrology"...

That's not science...

FossilBob wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't make it any simpler for you. Perhaps you have worked in science for the last 3 decades?
A scientific theory is what I correctly defined. The process of evolution is certainly proved by the vast amount of evidence; the theory explains how the process itself works.
The details of the process are still not entirely understood; the fact of the process is established beyond any reasonable doubt.
No evidence that I know of supports "ID"... When asked for proof, "ID" advocates fail to produce.
The Dover trial would have been an excellent place for them to present some evidence...instead, they were forced to admit that "ID" was at the same level as "astrology"...
That's not science...

Yes, the old "it's just a theory" claim. Only useful in confusing people who don't know the the difference between a theory in general usage and a scientific theory. My daughter is completing her masters in teaching science and starts teaching in September and hopefully there will be fewer uneducated people for the ID/creation nuts to confuse.

Feklahr wrote:

As I have said before, I learned about both evolution and creationism as a teen. I was taught evolution in my public high school, and I learned about creation in Sunday school.
There are many venues for theistic teachings, public school science classes are not one of these venues, nor should be. There are private and parochial schools, church, camps, and Sunday school to teach theistic ideas. LEAVE SCIENCE ALONE.

We shouldn't allow theistic ideas that have been PROVEN to be false and a lie to be taught to anyone, period and done with.
Of course, that would mean getting rid of ALL religions because 99.9999999999999999% of the things in every single religion ON THIS PLANET are based on lies....... Personally, I wouldn't weep if that happened.