Why aren't people allowed to question evolution in science class?

Question

I am not talking about religion but rather certain known falshoods or controvercies that are knowingly presented as evidence for evolution.

Note to Godless. Have a look at the book the Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells. This books documented evidence of a number of beliefs which you have learned are in some cases out right false or at best dubious. This book was criticized by Eugenie Scott head of NCSE but she did admit it is technically correct.

fourmebears it isn't necessary to criticize a persons intelligence however this does seem to be the pattern used by those who are uncomfortable with their dogmatic beliefs to be challenged.

If you want another good read try darwin on trial by Berkley Law professor emeritus Phillip Johnson. Thats if you al are up to a challenge.

Biology teacher Roger Dehart submitted some articles from well known science magazines that had problems with some of the things being taught in science class. These articles had nothing to do with science but under pressure from the ACLU they were not allowed into the classroom. Which is really ironic as the ACLU is supposed to be the vanguard of free speech but in this case was more interested in protecting Darwinian orthodoxy. I say this because we are all tax payers and have a right to make sure it is science being taught not unquestionable philosophy.

For all non religious people a good book that criticizes evolution by Michael Denton (agmostic) Evolution a theory in crisis

For all non religious people a good book that criticizes evolution by Michael Denton (agmostic) Evolution a theory in crisis

Sorry about the typo thats agnostic not agmostic.

Baritone: weak argument I suggest if someone had any legitimate argument about who wote any of Shakespears works people should be glad to have that brought to light. A better example might have been if someone had criticized the holocaust constantly in history class. Such people do exist and again at least it should be open to some form of discussion without derailing the learning process.

I am constantly amazed at those who are highly critical of ideas they have never read for themselves. I come from the vantage point as having bought into whatever I was sold years back when I was in science class and trusted the educators to be providing us with unbiased truth.(If there is such a thing)

Agreed Triforce evolution is not understood yet it is taught as a fact. And I can agree with some aspects of evolution. But you would be suprised what is being sold and what is being censored. Please read the book the Icons of evolution you may come away feeling betrayed.

I hear what your saying tych... I again I am stressing I am not taking about religion I am talking about evolutionary theory standing on it's own merit not being compared with religious theory.

Moirus science is supposed to be self correcting what is interesting is some of the material constantly being promoted in science text books has been known to be false for a long time, yet it keeps getting republished with little concern as to truthfullness. I plead if you can read the book Icons of evolution you may be shocked.

Mikey P The argument that it is pretty widely accepted that it is true is not much of an argument no disrespect intended. Perhaps why something is widely accepted is because no one is allowed to question it. It is the same as saying it's true because we said so.

David M you sad individual, apparently you are not able to differenteate the difference between science and religion. I have repeately stressed about judging evolution on it's own merit. Why people would rather talk about religion is revealing. Perhaps you incapaple of making that distinction or commenting on someting beyond your grasp. Do the community a favout and read something from outside the limited boundary of your own mental prison.

People if for no other reason than to effectively criticize someone it is good to find out what they are actually saying in their own words. Just possibly they may have something of substance to offer.

Fou....lol I'll gladly accept your verdict if you agree to read any of the books I have mentioned. Until such a time, remain in your blissfull state.

Fourmore... add on I mean read the books by the authors themselves not just their critics.

Four...I'm not so sure you know the meaning of ad hominem. That means to the man meaning personal. calling someone one dumb means you (personal part) are dumb. You suggest too late I fear. This is fine but not really effective critique. If you can disprove any of the issues I would welcome it. But most importantly you make this suggestion at my initial question. I really don't mind your statement it kind of reveals to me that you don't have serious ciriticism abut an issue you have already decided about. I am also fine with this. Personally I use to buy what was being taught in science class uncritically.

Answer 1

Because they have to protect their "religeous dogma". If someone asks questions, the answers might be something that steers people away from evolution. Or even worse a question that they cannot answer. They worship this theory as a religeon. They are naturalists in that any evidence that points to the supernatural is back burnered and put in a closet and not looked at until they can devise some way to explain it naturally. If they can't, then the question cannot make another appearance. So they are really not all that scientific if the evidence points to anything supernatural, they don't look at it, therefore making it impossible to prove there IS a supernatural.
If I were to go to trial and try to prove a man murdered another, what would be the best defense to defend this murderer (making the assumption that the truth is the man did murder the other man)....They try to make certain evidence inadmissible in court. "Any evidence NOT found at the crime scene is inadmissible!"

"But your honor, we have a bloody knife with both men's DNA found just outside the front door"...

"No sorry, it wasn't "at" the crime scene so we cannot look at it.

(Obviously you can see I know nothing of CSI or anything, but just trying to prove my point).

Certain questions in a classroom might draw attention to some of the more obvious problems of Darwinian Evolution and therefore cannot be asked. A dangerous practice that protects a bias over the real search for truth, no matter where it takes us.

Answer 2

As far as I know, people are allowed to question evolution in science class. The difficulty that arises is that those who do question evolution are given responses that are supported by evidence, rather than speculation about an unknowable Supreme Being, and are consequently dissatisfied with the answers, having made up their minds beforehand on the basis of religion.

Answer 3

Evolution is a religion that has been embraced by the state. You are not allowed to question it, because if you really started to question it, you would see that it is a religion full of lies and deceipt.

Fables say that a frog becomes a man through a kiss- evolution just throws in millions of years, and calls it science. Evolution is a theory, and a very weak one at that. Creationism should be taught as a viable theory also. There is a whole lot more evidence for that than for evolution. It is really presuppositions that taint how we look at the evidence.

Answer 4

Another sad Christian trying to prove that they do not understand there is a difference between science and their faith! Learning and dictating to others. Perhaps if Christians opened their minds and actually looked at science they might gain a little more understanding.

There is plenty of room for people to accept science and have faith but when people of faith think that that is science or better than science, ignorance takes over.

Christianity is a faith - those that cannot believe and have faith in it seek proof - that makes them a bad Christian does it not?

Pray tell where did Christians get this great scientific knowledge to declare things false? You do Christianity no service with such ridiculous assertions.

Answer 5

You are allowed to question it. Why wouldn't you? The first time I was taught about evolution, I had a ton of questions. The teacher answered each question thoroughly and made sure the class did understand that it was only a theory.

Answer 6

You can question anything you want, just don't expect a good answer. Most science teachers are not true scientist. They are education majors who took a few extra science classes. Keniesiology (PE) is a science class, that is why many coaches are science teachers. It doesn't make them experts in biology, evolution, chemistry, archeology, or any other branch of science. So they will usually just refer you back to the text book.

Answer 7

You are allowed to question anything at all that you are taught in school; algebraic equations, history, English usage, whatever. Just do so in an intelligent way. Don't question evolution just by telling the class about talking serpents.

Answer 8

You can question it, but like any other argument, you better have a good reason to question it (i.e. a more likely theory with more proof). It's fairly widely accepted that evolution is true so that is why questioning it is not as acceptable as questioning other theories in science.

Answer 9

You are allowed to question any and all of evolutionary theory, just make sure you don't look dumb when you do so. Too late I fear.

Actually just a thought, have you ever been to a science class?

Edit:

The reason I am calling you dumb, and I am, is that there are no 'real' controversies in evolutionary theory, there are certainly no known falsehoods. if you were to say the same thing about electromagnetisn or gravity I would also call you dumb. What else is there to do? It is not an ad hominem attack, you are showing yourself to be ignorant (or worse, blinkered), it is fair comment.

Answer 10

Because scientists, want to present even falsehoods as concrete evidence. They even present the "theory" of evolution as fact. And anyone that says otherwise is chastized, ignored, you name it. If they actually looked as it in the way it should be viewed, then they would have to admit there is a God, which no way on earth or heaven are they going to do.