I don't get it. Why are the ones convinced of the theory of human evolution so enraged that the mere mention of a alternate explanation of the Universe? "Teaching" implies the passage of knowledge from teacher to student, as in Mathmatics for example.
It should be obvious that the possibility of a Supreme Being falls well within the boundaries of philosophy, AND science, there being no way at present for any ABSOLUTES in either area. TEACHING as undisputed fact that which is so full of controversy ......and major bias. Why not present both sides? Why not let the student decide? Without fear of ridicule or worse if they should decide chance mutation and "natural selecton" (instead of possibly simple adaptations) seem contrary to what their heart tells them? Biology need not always be presented in evolutionary terms. Observable biological processes and other "True Science" that does not require blind faith in any theory ought to be the ONLY criteria for academic progress.
2007-07-11 16:15:33 · 10 answers · asked by The Oldest Man In The World 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
"You don't have to teach both sides of an issue, if one of them is a load of crap." Bill Mayher
2007-07-11 16:20:46 · answer #1 · answered by skeptic 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is the way politics work . Clinton and Obama will bring up everything possible to make the other one look bad . When one finally wins the nomination , the other one will have to try to convince the voters of what a great president the winner would make . This is politics for you . How can a person who was so bad during the primary election , be so perfect during the general campaign ? McCain has the advantage of having no opponents until November .
2016-05-20 01:45:44 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They don't refer to it as the theory of evolution anymore. Creationism and intelegent design are theories and always will be until we die we can't know FOR SURE what's gonna happen. Faith alone proves nothing. If you're going to teach students the theory of creationism, then you'd have to, in all fairness, theach the theory of allah, and the theory of magic and spell casting, ect. Then let them decide which theory they like best.
2007-07-17 00:21:12 · answer #3 · answered by Sandy B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The religion side lacks logic and common sense, and after years of studying it and reading every single page of the Bible, I would not recommend others waste their time doing likewise. There is nothing to be taught from the Bible. It is nothing but contradictions, and wild imagination.
As for atheism, nothing needs to be taught for that cause either. Who cares whether evolution is supported or not?
It is not important. Common sense is all you need to support atheism, and common sense is all you need to refute the Bible and the religion that chose that book as its centrepiece.
2007-07-11 16:27:22 · answer #4 · answered by americanhero_aa 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Re EDUCATION: TRUTH and FACTS Rule! ... Myths Don't.
Clearly, it's NOT "obvious that the possibility of a Supreme Being falls well within the boundaries of science"!
By *YOUR* 'Logic'... Ra, Odin, Amotken, Zeus (+ 359 other Greek "Gods"), Baal, Jupiter, Shiva, Apo, Skak, Allah, X'ian, Zoroaster, Cai Shen, Toci, Quetzalcoatl, Asase Ya, Jehovah, Zeme, the Kind and Mighty FSM and 000s more SHOULD *ALL* BE TAUGHT. ... Why not present *ALL* sides, huh?
"seem contrary to what their heart" -- NO! .. Teach TRUTH!
"blind faith in any theory" -- WTF? ... The ToE has 175 years of unrelentingly solid positive data, observation, experiment, testing, re-testing, peer-review, publishing, (new) DNA data confirming it all... ( and NO challenges! ... NOT ONE! )
And *YOU* Don't Even Say *what* You Wanna Teach! . ID?
KMID: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
( A Xian PhD with widely regarded credentials... Pls see. )
Even huge numbers of your Christian brethren understand that you are out-of-touch with Truth and Reality. … As just one example, here’s >10,600 U.S. Clergy agreeing with Darwin's Theory of Evolution ( ToE ):
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm
One sentence of the CLERGY OPEN LETTER reads:
“To reject this truth (ToE) or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.” < Our *KIDS*! >
2007-07-11 16:18:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
We do not teach that the Earth might be flat.
There is zero, repeat zero controversy about the overall truth of evolution outside religious circles.
2007-07-11 16:18:42 · answer #6 · answered by fourmorebeers 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Creationism doesn't fall anywhere near within the boundaries of science.
2007-07-11 16:19:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ok, so you refer to it as a philosophy, then teach Creation as a philosophy in a philosophy class and not in a science class.
I object to it being taught as equivalent to science. If it were in a philosophy class I'd have no problem. I've taken several philosophy classes in college, if Creation were apart of the syllabus I would welcome it. But it's not welcome in science classes.
2007-07-11 16:20:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
one can teach without uttering a word
2007-07-18 09:00:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Against God question. stop it.
jtm
2007-07-11 16:20:22 · answer #10 · answered by Jesus M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋