Best
252 Comments
Post
  • #1
    !
    I am a Christian and a Conservative. I also have a degree in Biology. While creationism has its place in church, It isn't science nor is it history, so it has no place in public school.
  • #30
    !
    Well you as a "Christian", should concede that evolution has as much scientific fact as intelligent design.

    or are you 1 of those "Christians" who believe a giraffe evolved with 3 pumping stations strategically placed in order to assure proper blood flow to the brain?
  • #46
    !
    @bsking there is no evidence to support intelligent design or that GOD exists. It is a matter of faith and should be left to that. This bill is about religion not teaching useful skills. Maybe I'll try that on my next project, I won't do anything and when my very religious boss asks me why I'll state I'm waiting on GOD to do it.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #57
    !
    @bsking you really have a problem with judging people and making unfounded statements about people you don't agree with. None of my family is unemployed nor would I suffer from the loss of a job. I have more than enough assets to live the rest of my life comfortably. No I did not inherit it, my parents were poor. I have earned it through hard work and living modestly alIowing me to retain much of what I have made.
  • R Load more replies

  • #5
    !
    If we can teach kids they are accidents that mistakenly came into existence, why can't we also teach them the truth, that there is a God out there that created them, loves them, and wants to make sure they lead happy fruitful productive law abiding lives? Or maybe we should teach them what kids are taught in liberal inner cities schools that has their dropout rate in the 60% range?
  • #24
    !
    Because its not science. You want creationism? Put it in world history where students already learn about the worlds religions, and include the other creation stories too. You will not get creationism in any science class. You get nothing! Good day sir!
  • #32
    !
    Because PRIMARY education should be just that....primary. If we want to teach creationism, darwinism and/or any other advanced studies, that's what secondary education is for. Jeez, let's teach them the fundamental 3 R's first and after they master those (about the time they reach 13th grade...lol) then we can pump their heads full of other things.
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    "The Supreme Court declared bills requiring intelligent design unconstitutional in the 2005 case Kitzmiller v. Dover."
    So, more fodder for the fodder pile! The Supreme law of the United States has already ruled on this and these jackass jockeys want to pass a law that will ultimately be brought BACK up to the Supreme Court only to be told we've already decided on this! We are talking about a waste of taxpayer money and time here!
    RE-ELECT NOBODY 2014 & 2016
  • #49
    !
    It remains a mystery to me why it is that your "God" would throw Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden in a rage, would destroy Sodom and Gomorrah in a rage, Part the waters so Moses and the Jews could escape yet bring the waters down and drown thousands of Egyptians, destroy the earth in a rage while "saving" Noah his family, crash down the walls of Jericho to help the "Christians" in a war. YET this same "God" would not lift a finger to help 20 first graders in Newtown. That's not a God. That's a frigging myth.
  • #58
    !
    But "God has His reasons", "God called them to Heaven", "God works in wonderfulness ways".......etc. Old testament to New testament...Bad God to good God. Good golly miss molly, great balls of fire!
  • #53
    !
    If it is scientifically impossible that life originated and became increasingly complex without intelligent design, then what is the scientific explanation for the origin and complexity of the proposed intelligent designer?
  • #19
    !
    It is very important that the scientific illiteracy of creationism - including the pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism - be taught about in schools. The willful ignorance of creationists about evolution, biology and all of science should be displayed to the students and discussed at length, so the students can understand why the anti-science movement exists: Because reality disagrees with the fundagelicals' millennia-out-of-date creation mythology. In the world of actual science, there is no doubt that both the fact and theory of evolution are true, and that the ignorance of creationism and intelligent design creationism are false.
  • #29
    !
    Thank you for that blunt, rational statement in support of science. However, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Hopefully by the time of the 22nd century the horses will be thirsty enough the drink. Old habits and beliefs die hard.
  • #11
    !
    Teaching creationism in Public Schools as science is to water-down an already watered down educational system and perpetuate the status quo which produces a more inordinate number of ignorant students who are then turned aloose on the world.

    Maybe in a religion class it could be one of many theories taught that relies on feelings, speculation, suppositions, inuendo, and lack of fundamental scientific evidence.
  • #27
    !
    @Thunderchicken
    I used to deal with the nuts by taking a couple of people to a board meeting and taking it over. Usually no one but members show up at meetings so a couple of non-members plus a couple of board members can override the crazies on the board.
  • #31
    !
    @WMCOL

    I never had that problem. Most of the board members are friends that I knew before they became members. Although that changed as the county grew, we still have a pretty good board. I expect that to change still as the big city influence becomes stronger.
  • #48
    !
    @Thunderchicken
    My scenario described a way to get things done when there is a problem with the kind of "nuts" board members you mentioned.
  • #61
    !
    @WMCOL

    Ya do whatever works.:-)

    With ours after the board made several reforms (fired a goofball principal, got the districts finances in order, raised the academic standards and instituted an advanced curriculum for those who tested into it...) things were going well. We were ranked very highly. Now with my kids almost out of school, I haven't been involved too much and I hear from the board members that are left and my youngest that things are getting weird again.(Some out there programs and drugs moving in. I kinda feel bad but I have other stuff to deal with now.)
  • R Load more replies

  • #10
    !
    Great!! Like we need to be proud what we've evolved to. Just stick to 'Readin', Ritin', & Rithmatic' and I'll handle that education at home.
  • R Load more replies

  • #6
    !
    Every farmer, gardener, & dog breeder knows evolution occurs - in their cases it is called selective breeding. Evolution is the best theory to explain species changing over time. It best explains observations & data & , yes, it is a theory. This is how science works & creationism or intelligent design is not supportdd by evidence. No, scientists are not working against religion. In fact, almost all of the scientists i know have deep faith that is strengthened through their work.
  • #87
    !
    @Thunderchicken Why should Creationism be taught in schools? There are no respected biologists that question evolution and there are no respected biologists that support creationism. Why should religious pablum be taught in science classes? Do you think that this is done in any other country in the world?
  • #91
    !
    @PNWest

    I have no problem with exposing kids to what others may believe. In fact I think intelligent design kinda melds creationism and evolution nicely.(God is a heck of an engineer.:-)
  • #93
    !
    @Thunderchicken Where do you draw the line then? There are many alternate explanations for various physical phenomena. Why don't we teach that the earth is flat because some ignorant people believe that? While we are at it lets teach that aliens created the pyramids because maybe it happened that way. Maybe we should teach that Hitler escaped and is living in South America. Some folks think that is true.
    In fact lets reach every crackpot theory anyone comes up with. Because after all we want to be fair. The fact is that there is a limited amount of hours available to teach our kids. We should concentrated on teaching what has the strongest evidence to support it - not what is popular with some religious nuts.
  • R Load more replies

  • #217
    !
    I understand people have their own beliefs, and I respect that. But keep schools neutral when it comes to religion. Teach only science based information. Separation of church and state is important and we can't forget that.
  • #203
    !
    Biology class? Ridiculous. I would be for teaching religion in comparative religion class. The subject matter would cover all religions. That and the internet would do a great service for critical thinking skills about religion. When you see the similarities in all religions, you will understand that they are a man made construct dreamed up by ancient peoples, although modern religions such as Scientology, Mormonism, 7th Day Adventist etc should be included as well.
  • #197
    !
    Here is a great place for people to realize that religon is personal education, and school is federal education, they should teach the kids darwinism, and if they don't agree then that's not a reason for them not to at least learn it. They don't have to agree with everything; Hence controversy.
    The Great thing about America.
  • #193
    !
    I am a Christian but if if the Missouri bill passed I would start pushing for comparative theory of creationism. Raven is black because when he escaped the sky chiefs lodge through the smoke hole he got dirty and couldn't get it off.
  • #191
    !
    The continued fight over creationism shows Americans are as dumb as rocks and continue to bring up stupid children. This issue was proven unequivocally in 1859.
  • #187
    !
    There is a key term "theory", that means it is not proven. If a class teaches the "theory" of evolution, then why not as they call creationism, the "theory" of intellegent design? What are the believers in evolution afraid of? Both will be taught as theories. Let the student make up his or her own mind which to believe, or neither. I believe both should be taught equally, without bias to either. It can't hurt. Only the theory of evolution was taught in my biology class in 1987. My teacher really only skimmed the chapter. In college at a public university both were included. It hurt nothing!
  • #200
    !
    Words have precise meanings in science. For example,'theory','law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true.

    A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

    The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
  • #213
    !
    @harold_lloyd
    Yes, but there is a third step after hypotheses and theory. It's fact. Completely proven. There are a lot of facts in science. Theories that have been tested and hold true. The theory of evolution has not been. There for its not just evolution, it's the theory of evolution. Just like they call creationism the theory of intellectual design. Neither has been fully proven, there for each theory should be taught.
  • #223
    !
    @BelinKS
    You understand even less than I thought.

    One thing science does not have is facts. Observations, hypotheses, theories, and even laws, yes, but not facts or truths, not in a formal sense.

    The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.

    Predictions, science is about predicting the future. If it doesn't intend do that, no matter what you call it, it's not science.
  • #224
    !
    @harold_lloyd
    You are obviously not a scientist. I am a radiation physicist. I understand the scientific method quite well. My job works on scientific facts (or truths as you would call them). The amount of radiation I make sure comes out of a radiation therapy unit when it is set for a patient by the radiation therapist is based solely on scientific facts. The hypothesis, then the theory were proven before I ever came along.
  • #226
    !
    @BelinKS I don't care what your job title happens to be, you are woefully deficient in your understanding of the scientific method.

    It shouldn't surprise me. There is a growing trend to train people for technical jobs, but not actually educating them. If you have naver taken a course with a title that approximates "Logic and the Scientific Method", you should call up your local community college and enroll.
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more comments...
Post