evolution sticker in textbook ruled unconstitutional

[vidcc]

edit: Hey Vidcc, keep your DNA to yourself. I don't want none of your damn carebear genes making me all sensitive and shit.

too late...we've all seen your infatuations in the Roger moore thread

[hobbes]

I take it you don't subscribe to Occam's way of approaching science.

It would therefore follow that you do not feel parsimony has merit.

I find this surprising.

Your analogy to Occam's razor is specious, that is what I am saying, old bean. I think you still may be a fish, a fish in denial of your fishy ways.

[lynx]

The missing link.

[spinningfreemanny]

Manny.

Do you honestly...hand on bible... believe that the stickers had no religious motivation behind them?

The judge hasn't said evolution cannot be called into question, he simply and correctly upheld the seperation of "church" and state

It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what is there, that's how courts get their decisions. I'm sure many people "believed" a defendent was guilty in many instances; but they cannot convict them of such on that alone.

a sticker is not a church.

If the judge has not indeed said that evolution cannot be called into question; can you name me a way to do so; evading the reasoning of this court case?

Simply; a teacher cannot even state to their class that this is indeed a theory, not fact, in this judges ruling.

As stated earlier by someone; the sticker is a but redundant in the reminder of the Evolution theory. Why, then, would it be necessary in the eyes of some people (probably parents who forced the administration's decision) for a sticker to be put there unless the teacher was teaching otherwise?

[hobbes]

It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what is there, that's how courts get their decisions. I'm sure many people "believed" a defendent was guilty in many instances; but they cannot convict them of such on that alone.

a sticker is not a church.

If the judge has not indeed said that evolution cannot be called into question; can you name me a way to do so; evading the reasoning of this court case?

Simply; a teacher cannot even state to their class that this is indeed a theory, not fact, in this judges ruling.



As stated earlier by someone; the sticker is a but redundant in the reminder of the Evolution theory. Why, then, would it be necessary in the eyes of some people (probably parents who forced the administration's decision) for a sticker to be put there unless the teacher was teaching otherwise?

Manny,

The teacher is presenting a theory. A theory is precisely what? It is an unproved assumption.

What evidence do you have that it is presented as fact?

The judge simply understand that only religious people have any interest in discrediting it. Why place a sticker to tell people what the word theory means?

So when the teacher talks about the theory of evolution, he is not stating fact, but a theory. A theory that can be debated.

Debated how?

Well, as I have stated, natural selection and adaption are closed book proven, but how does evolution explain original creation.

At present, scientific evidence falls very short of explaining this, in my opinion.

But we can't just abandon ship and give all credit to God. Firstly, it differs the question to "Where did God come from", and secondly it ejects us from any further thought. You believe it or you don't. No further evidence, thought or experiments will change this. That is NOT what science is about. Science and scientific thought is about developing theories from the available evidence.

Faith based beliefs are for the Church.

[spinningfreemanny]

Manny,

The teacher is presenting a theory. A theory is precisely what? It is an unproved assumption.

What evidence do you have that it is presented as fact?

The judge simply understand that only religious people have any interest in discrediting it. Why place a sticker to tell people what the word theory means?

So when the teacher talks about the theory of evolution, he is not stating fact, but a theory. A theory that can be debated.

Debated how?

Well, as I have stated, natural selection and adaption are closed book proven, but how does evolution explain original creation.

At present, scientific evidence falls very short of explaining this, in my opinion.

But we can't just abandon ship and give all credit to God. Firstly, it differs the question to "Where did God come from", and secondly it ejects us from any further thought. You believe it or you don't. No further evidence, thought or experiments will change this. That is NOT what science is about. Science and scientific thought is about developing theories from the available evidence.

Faith based beliefs are for the Church.

Exactly. That last sentence states my case.

Faith based beliefs are for the Church. Macro-evolution is a faith based belief; there is virtually no scientific evidence that the big bang happened, and it breaks many scientific laws we hold today. It's not science, its faith on our tax dollars. I really see no need for creationism to be taught in schools; likewise, it's not science. But if Creationism. or intelligent design is out, Macro-evolution must be out. Have a private school teach it, and its students pay for it; not me.

Yet I went through months of the theory of evolution unbenownst to me on what was really happening until recently.

[Busyman]

Exactly. That last sentence states my case.

Faith based beliefs are for the Church. Macro-evolution is a faith based belief; there is virtually no scientific evidence that the big bang happened, and it breaks many scientific laws we hold today. It's not science, its faith on our tax dollars. I really see no need for creationism to be taught in schools; likewise, it's not science. But if Creationism. or intelligent design is out, Macro-evolution must be out. Have a private school teach it, and its students pay for it; not me.

Yet I went through months of the theory of evolution unbenownst to me on what was really happening until recently.

Are you saying that evolution has absolutely no scientific basis.

Are you on crack?

This wouldn't even be an issue if it didn't tread on religious fanatic's beliefs.

If what you say happens then theories wouldn't be able to be taught and would have no possibility of leading to breakthroughs in science.

Creationists suck!!!

[hobbes]

Exactly. That last sentence states my case.

Faith based beliefs are for the Church. Macro-evolution is a faith based belief; there is virtually no scientific evidence that the big bang happened, and it breaks many scientific laws we hold today. It's not science, its faith on our tax dollars. I really see no need for creationism to be taught in schools; likewise, it's not science. But if Creationism. or intelligent design is out, Macro-evolution must be out. Have a private school teach it, and its students pay for it; not me.

Yet I went through months of the theory of evolution unbenownst to me on what was really happening until recently.

That is sheer idoicy. Macro-evolution can be supported by logical argument. The precise delineation of such is yet to be presented.

The fact that the universe is expanding is the basis of the "Big Bang", what are you babbling about?

What scientific law does "macro-evolution" break, name one.

Macro-evolution is not based on believe or not. It is up for support or refutation, it is a theory.

Creationism is not.

[spinningfreemanny]

1st and 2nd law of thermaldynamics

conservation of angular momentum

That's off the top of my head.

if you want to know why; Your going to have to follow the link

Just, watch. It's pretty amazing, and it's always worth exposure, if anything.

[lynx]

I followed the link, then I investigated the author of the site.

I found this, which pretty much leaves "Dr" Kent Hovind discredited, wouldn't you say?