Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012

yeah riiight

I am glad that you agree.

I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of misguided (to the point even of committing perjury in ‘Dover, et. al.’) and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual realityEvolution as a scientific discipline must be divorced from the associated parent philosophy Uniformitarianism which was in vogue preceding it for reasons which have been discredited since. Evolution is a valid scientific discipline, Uniformitarianism is a disproven philosophy and school of thought. Uniformitarianism has intruded and embedded itself into scientific thought and thus skewed many considerations of cosmology and astral physics from being objective and empirical. Never mind poor old Emmanuel Velikovsky: While the evidence that he was considering was and is relevant and valid, his derivations (due to his great lack in correct scientific methodology) and conclusions were far amiss. He thus did a great disservice to the school of astral catastrophism, and set back its credibility immensely.The most recent conclusive disproof of Uniformitarianism is this(Coverage to the public was broadcast on a segment of Nova in the last 12 months):1. In the past decade (survey completion in last 3-4 years) a radar/topological mapping satellite of improved precision surveyed the surface of Venus.2. Recently formed (even of possibly historical times), non-eroded craters were found in large and significant quantities on the surface of Venus, craters which were not the result of volcanic activity, but of astral catastrophism (meteoric impact).3. When a renowned (I didn’t take note of his name, due to the following) uniformitarian astrophysicist was interviewed for his opinion he said: Well, I don’t see how Uniformitarianism can ever possibly explain these craters. But, nevertheless, I’m not willing to give it up.4. Gentlemen, this is not objective, logical, scientific methodology. Scientific methodology requires that when the derived conclusions of your theory are found to be false in light of the evidence, then you either discard the theory or, if possible modify the flawed part of it accordingly. To cling to it after it has been disproved is not objective, it is religious domaticism.Creationism per se in all of its multi-farious manifestations, since it invokes to some extent and at some point a supernatural genesis of species, is thus by its very nature incapable of being a scientific discipline. That being the case, creationism has absolutely no place whatsoever in any scientific textbook.PaulamessageforthehumanraceEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Add more blank lines between paragraphs.

Spamming the same post all over the place is bad form.

Consider this a reiteration of jar's Message 274 but from a moderator. Please don't post this again, thanks. If you do, your posting privileges will be removed.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

If the public votes to let creationism be taught, it should be taught. This is America. They should hire better teachers to teach it though, since it isn't fair if a teacher has bias to one theory or another. Existing teachers should be able to pass new tests on creationism to make sure they understand the whole truth. Science has evidence for creationism too. Parents know what science is better than their kids do, so what theories get taught should be based on democracy... at least in America. I know that if I got to decide what theories I was taught when I was a kid, I would have had no idea where to even start. I never would have learned any of the good theories, like gravity. That's why kids aren't allowed to vote.

Hi again OpticalIllusions, Creationism is taught -- in churches. Should evolution, geology, physics and astronomy be taught in churches? How do →you← know what is better? Have you studied as much as the teachers have? I agree that having a teacher with religious biases would be a poor choice for teaching concepts that are in conflict with their beliefs.What about facts and evidence that supports the hypothesis and theory, showing that science knowledge is expanded by applying the scientific process where biases are tested against objective evidence? They should pass tests that gauge the depth of knowledge of the field/s they are teaching, knowledge gained by tested objective methodology that reduces or eliminates biases due to beliefs and opinions that are unsubstantiated. Curiously, I've seen none. Perhaps you could provide some that you feel is of scientific value? And teachers know how to teach better than parents (being trained to do so), and scientist know more about science than non-scientists. So if you are ignorant about physics, geology, biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc etc etc, you should be able to vote intelligently on what to teach in those fields? Really?Knowledge is not a matter of democracy. You can't vote to change facts to suit beliefs, you can't vote to change π to be 3.0.Your opinion is useless in changing reality. And that is also why undereducated parents should not decide what is taught in science classes: you don't know enough to have an informed opinion.Enjoy.

That would require an ammendment to the Constitution. The public can vote to revoke the separate of church and state through the ammendment process. However, local state legislatures can not pass a bill that calls for the teaching of creationism since this violates the constitutional rights of the students. Federal law trumps state law on this one.But why would we want to do this? Why should students be taught about magical poofing in science class? Why should the government be in the evangelizing business? I urge you to start a thread listing this evidence. Scientists do know where to start, and we should listen to them. What we should teach are the theories that scientists are USING, and who better to tell us what those theories are than the scientists themselves.

Scientists do know where to start, and we should listen to them. What we should teach are the theories that scientists are USING, and who better to tell us what those theories are than the scientists themselves.
===================That remains your own philisophy. Unlike a religion, science should be questioned all the times as science is to confrim a truth while a religion is adocate a possible truth which inviting for a faith to believe. You can never confirm a religion as if a religion is confirmed it's no longer a religion.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

But you do realize that it is correct, no? That doesn't make sense to me as it appears contradictory. If it should be questioned all the time then how could it be said to be confirming a truth? Wouldn't it being a truth mean it need not be questioned? I never question whether 2+2=4...Its been explained many times that science does not seek The Truth^TM. Its an approximation... its an inference... and it works! Look at all the wonderful things science has brought us. And many religions advocate an impossible truth and demand their adherants have faith to believe. YEC's as an example. Not necessarily; it depends on what you mean by "religion".

---

If you click on the 'Peek' button at the bottom right my post, you can see the coding that I typed into the text box to do the various formatting. For example, if you type: [qs]quoting is easy[/qs] or [quote]quoting is easy[/quote]It will come out like this: or

quote:

---

quoting is easy

---

qs stands for quote shaded and is typically used for quoting from the message your replying to, but its whatever. Just use something other than a bunch of equal signs

True enough. It is also a very good philosophy to follow for educating future scientists. Why teach future scientists theories that they will never use? Why not teach them the theories that they will need to use in order to do original research? How can you question a theory if you don't know what it states? I fully agree that all theories should be challenged by real scientific research. Sadly, this is not what ID/creationists are doing. They are not doing any scientific research. All they are doing is spreading anti-science propoganda that has no basis in the scientific method.

Nor do ID/Creationists seem to even know what a theory is."God did it" is not a theory."God did it by making mud figures and breathing the breath of life into them" is closer but unless the existence of "breath of life" could be established or a method of testing to see if "breath of life" exists, it is still not a theory.

What if the majority of the public is more concerned about pushing religious agenda than truth? The majority doesn't get to decide what the facts are.Edited by Stargaze, : No reason given.