Should Evolution be taught in State Schools?

[Milks Empire]

Anything I could say at this moment would result in having to go sit in the Bad Kat corner. So let's simply smile knowingly, clink our beer bottles together, and have a cold one.

AQed!

[Big Jim P]

And modest.

Well, when the alternative is being narrow-minded, provincial, and sticking one's fingers in one's ears and screaming "NAH NAH NAH BIBLE CAN'T HEAR YOU" and there's an actual danger that the ignorant are taking over, yeah, I do like to point it out.

Actually, I think Teachers have very little to be modest about. You are educating our young (and sometimes our old). Kudos.

[Vault 1]

So, wait. You would do something utterly horrific and lethal as some sort of pseudoscience if it meant you could get attention for it in a way that would cause the downfall of genuine scientific experiments. I mean, in an ends justify the means sort of way ---- is that what you're saying?

Well, basically yes, I don't see why not. Isn't "the ends justify the means" one of the driving principles of science in the first place?

[The Ancient and Orthodox Potato Church]

Do you understand the word "omnipotent"? It comes from the word "potent", meaning "able", and has the suffix "omni" meaning "everything". The word "omnipotent" means "able to do everything". If something is able to do everything, then it was, is and always shall be able to influence the world dramatically without being detected, no matter how advanced the means of detection becomes. Why?

As I have said before you either can have omnipotence or reality but not both. And here's why (again); reality is based on a certain number of rules (some we know, some we kind of know, some we don't) which regulate what is possible and what is not possible, for every single entity or item within this reality. There are thus restrictions in this reality on what any being or thing can do which cannot be broken.

An omnipotent being cannot have any restrictions and therefore would break the rules upon which the existence of everything is dependant.

Because influencing the world dramatically without being detected falls into the category of "everything".

No what that means is that the thing influencing the world is simultaneously not influencing the world, an impossibility. If the world is being changed in some "dramatic" way then that change itself would easily be detectable. And I'm guessing to that this kind of change is not going to be one that is natural, by the way you're talking. Therefore we already have ample evidence of tampering, even before we start looking for the cause, therefore it is immediately detectable, thus negating your "indetectability".

Again either you can have your god or you can have reality, but not both. Personally I'd go for reality, but some people have a deep psychological need for a safety blanket.

[Furious Grandmothers]

So, wait. You would do something utterly horrific and lethal as some sort of pseudoscience if it meant you could get attention for it in a way that would cause the downfall of genuine scientific experiments. I mean, in an ends justify the means sort of way ---- is that what you're saying?

Well, basically yes, I don't see why not. Isn't "the ends justify the means" one of the driving principles of science in the first place?

Vault 1, I can't help but be impressed with how long you've been able to maintain your cover. Not just on the last thread; this one as well

[Divair]

So, wait. You would do something utterly horrific and lethal as some sort of pseudoscience if it meant you could get attention for it in a way that would cause the downfall of genuine scientific experiments. I mean, in an ends justify the means sort of way ---- is that what you're saying?

Well, basically yes, I don't see why not. Isn't "the ends justify the means" one of the driving principles of science in the first place?

No.

[Vault 1]

Well, basically yes, I don't see why not. Isn't "the ends justify the means" one of the driving principles of science in the first place?

No.

Really?

Then why do scientists use and dump white mice by the billion, infect, torture and kill apes in pharmaceutical research?
Even include frog vivisection in biology class, to no more end that to show a point to kids who don't care about it, scar children who haven't been desensitized yet, and promote animal abuse down the line (because if the teacher says it's fine to cut open a live frog to see what's inside, perhaps it's not so wrong to zippo a cat to see if it can extinguish itself, is it?)

[Lyrantea]

Yes, it should.

[Katganistan]

So, wait. You would do something utterly horrific and lethal as some sort of pseudoscience if it meant you could get attention for it in a way that would cause the downfall of genuine scientific experiments. I mean, in an ends justify the means sort of way ---- is that what you're saying?

Well, basically yes, I don't see why not. Isn't "the ends justify the means" one of the driving principles of science in the first place?

In no one's opinion but yours.

[Vault 1]

In no one's opinion but yours.

A statement of absolute denial like this takes only one counterexample to refute.

Severe animal abuse in medical abuse was one. Same in school biology classes another.

Doctor Josef Rudolf Mengele, M.D., Ph.D. will be third.

[Ankoku Satsui no Hadou Samurai]

In no one's opinion but yours.

A statement of absolute denial like this takes only one counterexample to refute.

Severe animal abuse in medical abuse was one. Same in school biology classes another.

Doctor Josef Rudolf Mengele, M.D., Ph.D. will be third.

And here's another counter example to refute you.

[Farnhamia]

In no one's opinion but yours.

A statement of absolute denial like this takes only one counterexample to refute.

Severe animal abuse in medical abuse was one. Same in school biology classes another.

Doctor Josef Rudolf Mengele, M.D., Ph.D. will be third.

Gosh, a semi-Godwin. Examples of animal abuse in school biology classes, please? And abuse in medical research is looked down on more and more these days. The point being, science changes. You do not. Anyway, you more or less admitted you're trolling, when you seconded a question I asked a day or so ago. The you who believes in science, I think it was, remember? And you aren't even a fun troll.

[Vault 1]

And here's another counter example to refute you.

In the U.S., under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (the Guide), published by the National Academy of Sciences, any procedure can be performed on an animal if it can be successfully argued that it is scientifically justified.

Any procedure.
Any procedure.

As long as it can be argued that it is "scientifically justified" - i.e. that the ends justify the means.

[Ankoku Satsui no Hadou Samurai]

Any procedure.
Any procedure.

As long as it can be argued that it is "scientifically justified" - i.e. that the ends justify the means.

Not quite what that act is intended to say. Your interpretation is wrong.

[Vault 1]

Not quite what that act is intended to say. Your interpretation is wrong.

Then what is it intended to say? Provide your, "right" interpretation.

It couldn't be more direct. "Any procedure can be performed", as long as one can successfully argue that there is scientific justification for it. Oh, and "pain relief is given unless it would interfere with the study".

Examples of animal abuse in school biology classes, please?

Frog vivisections.

Anyway, you more or less admitted you're trolling, when you seconded a question I asked a day or so ago.

Just because I understand some of the scientists' beliefs doesn't mean that I agree with them.
Imagine if I said the God is responsible for creating computers - wouldn't you dispute such a claim, even if you don't believe the Book?

[Dyakovo]

if atheism, which is not believing in any religions a religion then everyone called Atheist's are not atheist's

That's not what atheism means. A- (non) theism (belief in a god or gods). There are atheistic religions (I believe Buddhism is one).

Some forms of buddhism are atheistic, others are not.

[Dyakovo]

And modest.

Well, when the alternative is being narrow-minded, provincial, and sticking one's fingers in one's ears and screaming "NAH NAH NAH BIBLE CAN'T HEAR YOU" and there's an actual danger that the ignorant are taking over, yeah, I do like to point it out.

A bit off topic, but this brought to mind this from facebook:

Linda Xxxx Xxxxxxxx I say we need to get God back in school and guns and drugs out.
Me: You might want to familiarize yourself with the consitution.

A person's response to me by private message: Get a Life!!!!

[Farnhamia]

Not quite what that act is intended to say. Your interpretation is wrong.

Then what is it intended to say? Provide your, "right" interpretation.

It couldn't be more direct. "Any procedure can be performed", as long as one can successfully argue that there is scientific justification for it. Oh, and "pain relief is given unless it would interfere with the study".

Examples of animal abuse in school biology classes, please?

Frog vivisections.

Anyway, you more or less admitted you're trolling, when you seconded a question I asked a day or so ago.

Just because I understand some of the scientists' beliefs doesn't mean that I agree with them.
Imagine if I said the God is responsible for creating computers - wouldn't you dispute such a claim, even if you don't believe the Book?

Never vivisected anything in my biology classes. I will, however, accept that you did in yours. Did you protest? Did you refuse?

Perhaps I misinterpreted what you said. Nevertheless, your arguments against evolution consist of cuteness ("evilution") and little else. You provide nothing of a scientific nature to refute the facts and theory. Though art as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal: noise and little else.

[Chinese Regions]

In no one's opinion but yours.

A statement of absolute denial like this takes only one counterexample to refute.

Severe animal abuse in medical abuse was one. Same in school biology classes another.

Doctor Josef Rudolf Mengele, M.D., Ph.D. will be third.

Bad=/= incorrect

[Vault 1]

Never vivisected anything in my biology classes. I will, however, accept that you did in yours. Did you protest? Did you refuse?

Of course not. Kids... But after that, I no longer viewed Frog Baseball as an example of animal cruelty, but rather as a great laugh and a valid prospective form of entertainment.

Perhaps I misinterpreted what you said. Nevertheless, your arguments against evolution consist of cuteness ("evilution") and little else. You provide nothing of a scientific nature to refute the facts and theory. Though art as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal: noise and little else.

That was misspelling (whether intentional or not), not an argument. The main problem with the theory of evolution, in general, is contradiction with known biblical data, and therefore it is primarily to be refuted with evidence of scriptural rather than scientific nature.

Nonetheless, there is a growing conviction in scientific circles as well that Darwin was wrong. NatGeo, a popular publication, only had the balls to ask the question; New Scientist had enough to answer it - yes, Darwin was wrong. The understanding of this is only going to grow and improve. Fortunately, it is entering the public mind as well; if a few decades ago debates would revolve around whether creation science should be offered as a choice in schools, today the question is whether evolution should be.

[Ankoku Satsui no Hadou Samurai]

Not quite what that act is intended to say. Your interpretation is wrong.

Then what is it intended to say? Provide your, "right" interpretation.

It couldn't be more direct. "Any procedure can be performed", as long as one can successfully argue that there is scientific justification for it. Oh, and "pain relief is given unless it would interfere with the study".

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title9-vol1/xml/CFR-2009-title9-vol1-chapI-subchapA.xml

(f) Handling. (1) Handling of all animals shall be done as expeditiously and carefully as possible in a manner that does not cause trauma, overheating, excessive cooling, behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort.

(2)(i) Physical abuse shall not be used to train, work, or otherwise handle animals.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Tavalu]

Hmm. Well I personally think that Evolution should be taught in schools. The basics of biology is evolution. Actually throughout the year of my high school Bio class, I think evolution came up at least once a week. That is an example of how fundamental evolution is to Biology. It is almost impossible to teach biology without evolution, and biology is an important subject.

You do not have to agree with evolution, but it is important to learn about.

I am Christian but I feel like my beliefs are mine. Evolution should be taught as it is important to science. Do you have to agree with it? Nope, no school can ever make you accept evolution, but they can make sure you are well educated on the subject.

[Farnhamia]

Never vivisected anything in my biology classes. I will, however, accept that you did in yours. Did you protest? Did you refuse?

Of course not. Kids... But after that, I no longer viewed Frog Baseball as an example of animal cruelty, but rather as a great laugh and a valid prospective form of entertainment.

Perhaps I misinterpreted what you said. Nevertheless, your arguments against evolution consist of cuteness ("evilution") and little else. You provide nothing of a scientific nature to refute the facts and theory. Though art as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal: noise and little else.

That was misspelling (whether intentional or not), not an argument. The main problem with the theory of evolution, in general, is contradiction with known biblical data, and therefore it is primarily to be refuted with evidence of scriptural rather than scientific nature.

Nonetheless, there is a growing conviction in scientific circles as well that Darwin was wrong. NatGeo, a popular publication, only had the balls to ask the question; New Scientist had enough to answer it - yes, Darwin was wrong. The understanding of this is only going to grow and improve. Fortunately, it is entering the public mind as well; if a few decades ago debates would revolve around whether creation science should be offered as a choice in schools, today the question is whether evolution should be.

Darwin lived and studied in the 19th century. Viewed from a 21st century perspective, yes, he was wrong about the details of how evolution works. I challenge you to find anything in those articles that says "evolution does not happen." As far as biblical data goes, there is none that can challenge modern science. There's some historical information in the Bible that's been corroborated from other sources. The story of the creation is just that, a story, as believable as the creation stories of the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Greeks, etc. And there is no such things as "creation science." It, and Intelligent Design, are purely and simply an attempt to introduce Protestant Christianity into the public schools. All of this is public knowledge. The more people know, the smaller your chances are of creating a little theocratic corner of the world.

[Faolinn]

I say of course. It is only logical. It has quite a bit of evidence to support it. As a religious person (yes you read that right) I think we are obligated to. Not for some delusion of dispelling it as a myth, but because I believe that dispelling illusion is at the heart of spirituality. However, I say yes primarily because the science is indisputable as far as I can see. Is it not the duty of the school system to educate people in all forms of vital academia? It is important to today's scientific understanding of the world.

I agree with another person here who said that you don't have to agree with the idea, but you should learn it. Even as laughable as I find creationists much of the time, I think it would be wrong to deny a person their own convictions. Teaching evolution does not deny one their own opinions and beliefs. Nor should it be perceived that way.There's no law requiring the education system to deny you your own thoughts. So whether you believe in evolution like me or some other theory, there is no good reason not to teach it.

[Batuni]

Nonetheless, there is a growing conviction in scientific circles as well that Darwin was wrong. NatGeo, a popular publication, only had the balls to ask the question; New Scientist had enough to answer it - yes, Darwin was wrong.

Well, of course Darwin was wrong.

He never should have fallen for that 'God' nonsense.