The second time, I am asking the question on how we can allow evolution taught in our schools?

Question

Does anyone remember the debate between the Dow Chemist and TWO ( 2 ) evolutionists on PBS, channel 19? He proved it is a RELIGION that requires more faith than any other religion!!! Yet we allow it! It is not chemically or mathematically possible to the biggest degree! That means it did not happen. Does anyone not wonder why those who challenge it fully from a scientific point of view are called religious? The Dow Chemist, who never mentioned a Creation, was accused! What will we have next in our schools that we push, and yet is a pipe dream? We need to get rid of that religion in the schools! What do you think? Earl

Answer 1

Because the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community accepts evolution as not only theory well beyond serious doubt, but also the central unifying theory of Biology.

That's why.

Because that overwhelming consensus accepts evolution for three reasons: evidence, evidence, and evidence. To deny that there is *any* evidence in favor of evolution is to bury one's head so deep in the sand as to render one utterly blind. You may choose scientific illiteracy for yourself ... but our science classrooms are about teaching the *basics* of the main theories *currently* accepted by the scientific community.

That's why.

And because we don't set school curricula, or pass state laws, or throw away 150 years of scientific consensus, because some chemist on a PBS debate said something you agree with.

That's why.

And sorry ... if some DOW chemist "proved" that evolution has no evidence that makes it more than a religion accepted on faith ... then he would be up for a Nobel prize. Instead, you may believe that a "Dow chemist" (whose name you can't even remember) carries a lot of authority ... but apparently he hasn't persuaded many scientists that evolution has been
"proved" to be a religion.

It is not the job of school boards to rewrite science based on something you saw on TV.

That's why.

Answer 2

Evolution is a science, not a religion.
Science is based on *evidence*, while religion is based on *faith*. You cannot perform experiments to study subjects based on faith: for example, it is impossible to design an experiment to determine whether God exits. If He does exist, he does so outside the "normal" physical universe, as a supernatural force. Note the word "supernatural" - meaning "above nature", and hence not available for study by science.
Conversely, evolution *can* be studied by observation and experiment: the evolution of antibiotic-resistance has been performed in the lab, and has been observed in the world many times. So it is science!

The evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming: a 1997 poll demonstrated that 95% of *all* scientists (not just biologists) in the USA accept evolution. These scientists are not deluded, and they are not lying: evolution is accepted by the scientific community, so it should be taught in science classes.
And a chemist, however eminent his qualifications and acheivments within his field, is not qualified to debate evolution.

The reason why *most* (though not all) anti-evolution advocates take that stance is because they have religious convictions that cannot accomodate evolution.
Some anti-evolutionists (and it is possible that your Dow Chemist is among them) have difficulty accepting the probabilities of concepts like abiogenesis (the beginning of life from nonliving chemicals), but this has nothing to do with evolution, which describes how life changes - not now it began. For some reason, people still make the mistake of conflating these two seperate ideas together.

Evolution has been observed experimentally - both in terms of small-scale changes within a population (what creationists would term "microevolution", and which they generally accept) like industrial melanism of the peppered moth, and in terms of speciation (populations becoming no longer able to interbreed) like different strains of Drosophila fruitflies.
If it has been observed - then it is true! It is a scientific law.
The mechanisms behind it (natural selection, etc.) are scientific theories, but they are so widely accepted as to be considered "truth" by the scientific community.

Answer 3

You'll probably get the same answer you got the first time.

1. NO reputable scientist would ever try to "prove" a religion.

2. What were the Dow Chemist's qualifications? What was he doing arguing for or against something outside his field?

3. Agian, chemistry and maths has little to do with a major biological Law.

4. Unfortunately, what we have "next in our schools that we push, and yet is a pipe dream" is the weirdo christians trying to ram creation or its fancy name, intelligent design, down our throats.

Answer 4

faith isn't equivalent to/on the comparable footing as technology. And a concept is in basic terms a hair wanting actuality/regulation. "in basic terms a concept" remains an exceedingly sturdy case and much greater effective than the hypothesis of any faith. you do no longer "have faith" in evolution, you discover ways to appreciate why it particularly is real. that is been mentioned. that is like entering a contest to wind a sparkling motor vehicle and you win, then they supply you a die solid form of that motor vehicle and say it particularly is an extensive sufficient alternative. they are not equivalent and one isn't a suitable alternative of the different. Alex you're no longer ok knowledgeable in any respect and are the two blind or unwilling to work out the reality. you do no longer understand evolution contained in in the slightest degree. Alex I did no such subject, and you gave no rational argument with the aid of fact your information is fake. Take a 2d look on the data. you're lacking huge chunks of counsel. The introduction form is consistent with hypothesis with out information by any ability backing it up. you may no longer say "nicely there is no information so it is going to be introduction". it particularly is only stupid. think of approximately what you're asserting. We DO have "a million/2-formed" components. You ever heard of the appendix??? additionally, a "human" that's no longer "totally formed" isn't a human, it particularly is a completely formed something else! think of slowly approximately that so which you do no longer injury your self.

Answer 5

That's a political question, not a science question. If what was taught in schools was evolutionary science, few would object. Often the only thing that makes it to the classroom are wild claims which aren't supported by science.

Genetics is an extremely important field of modern science, medicine, agriculture, and so on. It should be taught in school. But if you teach that a fish and a dog have a common genetic ancestor, you should offer some evidence.

Answer 6

I think you have horrible information on science and on evolution. If you have falsify evolution, you should write a paper and publish it. You would probably win a Nobel prize since you would be reversing 150 years of biology.

Answer 7

Because evolution is a religion of those who oppose God. To stop its teaching you need to stop Satan. It can only be done one person at a time, and must begin in infancy.
________________________________________
KrazyKyngeKorny(Krazy, not stupid)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯