@theSexualHarrassmentPanda:
(which I maintain is still a factual claim as much of the world believes in alternative methods of creation of mankind and not necessarily evolution.)
Okay I object to your oversimplification of origin mythology in non western cultures as being similar to intelligent design. Do the people who believe humans were made by the Jaguar that raped the first women fit into ID. I don’t think so. Unless God is a licentious feline deity.
No, but then again, you’ll notice I said that a majority of the world believes in ALTERNATE methods of creation and not in creation by God or some other form of god(s), thus, a jaguar raping the first woman creating the first man would fit into that alternate theory (alternate to evolution that is.)
Personally, I think evolution holds up well to explain the differences in “flavors” of mankind (white, black, curly hair, straight hair, etc.)
And this is where I previously attacked you for being a cultural evolutionist but not a biological one. You can’t the latter without the former. There is actually very little genetic variation between humans, far less than many other species in fact. The “racial” characteristics are entirely superficial. Could you tell an Arab from an Italian, a German from a Russo-Ukrainian. I seriously doubt it.
That’s the point I was trying to make. While we have minor genetic drift we did not evolve from another species. Yes, we have olive skin, tan skin, white skin, black skin, red hair, curly hair, black hair, blue eyes, brown eyes, etc. But we’re all still human. We have the same number of chromosomes, the same medicine works on us, we all bleed when we’re cut, we all have the capability to love and feel warmth.
We create larger ears of corn by planting only the kernals from the largest ears of corn. Does this mean corn evolved from grass? No, it means that through selective breeding we have brought the best traits of our corn to the forefront while limiting those traits we find least desireable…but it’s still corn.
many religious people, of varrying “flavors”, view “this whole line of teachings is viewed by many religious families as a direct assault on their faith.”
If thats the case then they should look into private schooling. These same christian fundamentalists would chafe at the idea of jesuits teaching there kids and if you open the doors to religion in the schools that is what will happen. You can’t reject one faith and allow in another.
Very true, and the same arguement I am making against teaching evolution in schools. How can you permit one theory that contradicts another without disproving one of the theories? Better would be to not teach any form of evolution/creation then to espouse one as true and all the rest as false. Later, when children are in their early twenties, they can take courses on the various theories and decide for themselves which they choose to accept on faith and which they choose to ignore. But having the government decide which to teach is the equivalent of having the government say that all other theories are wrong and that this is the only proper theory. A stance I do not feel the government should be taking - at least without concrete evidence to support their claims - spoken or assumed.
However, if we TRUELY want to be tolerant of all religions, then we really should not side with one theory or another that directly contradicts fundamental pillars of certain religions - especially when the facts supporting the theory in question are questionable at best and at times, completely doctored.
Okay lets let in religion but only the Jesuits b/c they are actually highly educated and therefore the only ones trained to teach to students. Or is it that you want less qualified persons to be teaching the young of America. In other words is your objections to public schooling that it doesn’t reflect the biases of mass culture enough?
No, I think I stated my stance quite well. Basically, the government is determining what theory should be widely accepted at the expense of other theories. It isn’t that they’ve proven their theory to be truth, but rather, have just chosen this theory as the one they want to teach - and thus the one they want people to believe. However, if they dropped the entire module from the curriculum and replaced it with teachings on how to fight viral infections, or some other factual information we have in the field of biology, all would be happy as all could teach their children their own theory and the children could learn the other theories on their own time. It isn’t like I’m advocating the abolishment of all evolutionary teachings from the public library or the internet. I just do not like the government choosing one theory over another based on nothing other then the opinion of a few men decades ago.
(Yes, there are cases where men took bones from different animals and combined them to claim they had the missing link for personal glory, so no, I’m not making it up when I say even evolution has fictitiousness around it.)
But you ignore that it was the scientific process and academic review that acted as a safeguard to prevent such misrepresentations from being taught. If we go to your extreme say there is a minister who preaches that God ordains little boys submit to being molested by him and that it is “scientifically” beneficial for them to be treated so would you permit that if this person could point to “proof” that suggests molestation isn’t harmful. Once you eliminate academic review you open up a pandoras box that can’t be closed. Just who will decide then what ideas are suitable for teaching in schools? Politicians have a conflict of interest to use school as propaganda instruments or is that what you want?
No, I didn’t ignore it. After decades of research peer review did in deed determine that the fossile records had been altered. But this does not negate the fact that the community was so desperate to prove their theory that they were willing to accept falsified records for years without proper scrutiny. It would be like the schools in Texas refusing to teach any form of creation but the Jewish theories and when evidence to the contrary arose ignoring it and when falsified information is brought forth supporting their theory, espousing it as validation.
We really need to get the conjecture out of the class room and leave it for the graduates to research. Our children need to be taught the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts. Since evolution is not fact, creationism is not fact and any other story of human existance is not fact, none of it should be taught - especially in an organization where you expect to receive the facts, such as school.
